Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
Author Message
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,040
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 118
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #61
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-19-2017 07:12 PM)panama Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 06:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscent...?sid=76770

Uh oh! The Mayor endorses the FS initiative. SDSU is about to get burned without a stadium here in a couple or few years.

I guess SDSU doesn't have a much of a pull in San Diego as they think. The San Diego city leaders like to focus on pro teams I guess.
Umm...they just lost an NFL franchise..so...


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh...so? They sound like they are more interested in getting a MLS team than support SDSU even more. Even though the voters turn down the public $$$ for the Chargers, the MLS version is a much, much cheaper than the billion+ $$$ the Chargers were asking for.

Well at least we know why the Big West didn't invited UC-San Diego since they will soon get SDSU if the Aztecs don't shape up.
05-19-2017 07:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,886
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 333
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #62
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-19-2017 07:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 07:12 PM)panama Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 06:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscent...?sid=76770

Uh oh! The Mayor endorses the FS initiative. SDSU is about to get burned without a stadium here in a couple or few years.

I guess SDSU doesn't have a much of a pull in San Diego as they think. The San Diego city leaders like to focus on pro teams I guess.
Umm...they just lost an NFL franchise..so...


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh...so? They sound like they are more interested in getting a MLS team than support SDSU even more. Even though the voters turn down the public $$$ for the Chargers, the MLS version is a much, much cheaper than the billion+ $$$ the Chargers were asking for.

Well at least we know why the Big West didn't invited UC-San Diego since they will soon get SDSU if the Aztecs don't shape up.
It's the consolation prize. Bottom line is they are a see cons class city now with only MLB. They are seriously overcompensatimg. In Atlanta all tu e major league franchises were kept and GSU gets a new stadium. If SD wanted to save face then would have figured out a way to keepl.yhe Chargers plus figure out a solution for MLS and SDSU football.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
05-19-2017 07:22 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,552
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 72
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #63
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
Soccer wont win public money or land. There is not a group willing to shell out $400M for a stadium and $200M to the MLS for a franchise. They are looking for a sugar daddy, and so was SDSU.

Separately FS Investors and their SoccerCity was a scam to get free land worth over $1.5B and build condos and mall/business park and whatever there for a huge profit. The fine print they never have to build a stadium and they get around mitigation issues. They pressured SDSU to go along. The school got a new President and she bailed out. The voters were not going to approve this - the mayor should be booted for the back door dealing.

When you get down to realities, it's a tough spot. I think SDSU proposal to set aside 25% of the lot for their stadium needs has a chance. But it probably wont come free. SDSU will still need to raise something like $200M to build a stadium (no the CSU system will not give them that money, as there are many actual education related projects over the next decade at it's 23 campuses statewide), which means that has to get going. I suspect the city will still charge SDSU a lease fee of $2-3M for the next 30-50 years for that quarter lot, as they will get still need city police for the site. So the same annual fee structure, with an inflation escalator, but no money for actual construction. The rest of the site will have to meet mitigation and the best RFP will win.

I do think this could stall the whole process a year or more. That could make it very tough on SDSU. But theya re finally going down the right path.

BTW, MLS expansion is a massive scam to keep the league afloat. They are hoping to raise $700-800M in expansion fees to subsidize the existing teams. All the wrong reasons to expand.
05-19-2017 07:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,040
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 118
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #64
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-19-2017 07:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Soccer wont win public money or land. There is not a group willing to shell out $400M for a stadium and $200M to the MLS for a franchise. They are looking for a sugar daddy, and so was SDSU.

Separately FS Investors and their SoccerCity was a scam to get free land worth over $1.5B and build condos and mall/business park and whatever there for a huge profit. The fine print they never have to build a stadium and they get around mitigation issues. They pressured SDSU to go along. The school got a new President and she bailed out. The voters were not going to approve this - the mayor should be booted for the back door dealing.

When you get down to realities, it's a tough spot. I think SDSU proposal to set aside 25% of the lot for their stadium needs has a chance. But it probably wont come free. SDSU will still need to raise something like $200M to build a stadium (no the CSU system will not give them that money, as there are many actual education related projects over the next decade at it's 23 campuses statewide), which means that has to get going. I suspect the city will still charge SDSU a lease fee of $2-3M for the next 30-50 years for that quarter lot, as they will get still need city police for the site. So the same annual fee structure, with an inflation escalator, but no money for actual construction. The rest of the site will have to meet mitigation and the best RFP will win.

I do think this could stall the whole process a year or more. That could make it very tough on SDSU. But theya re finally going down the right path.

BTW, MLS expansion is a massive scam to keep the league afloat. They are hoping to raise $700-800M in expansion fees to subsidize the existing teams. All the wrong reasons to expand.

MLS will survive and thrive. They got a bigger TV contract and attendance and interest will continue to grow.

SDSU wants the land for free also.

I came across the comments section in an SD article that SDSU owns 35 acres in the Adobe Falls Rd area just across I-8 and they wanted to develop that land but didn't want to pay for the traffic improvements. They still can develop that land but yes, they will have to pay for it.

SDSU will be screwed if they don't side with the FS investors. They don't have the time to screw around if the Q is being demolished in 2018.
05-19-2017 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,886
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 333
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #65
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
The plan has to be well thought out. And as I said there is always another couple plans the public isn't privy to.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
05-19-2017 08:39 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,606
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 31
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #66
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-19-2017 07:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 07:12 PM)panama Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 06:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscent...?sid=76770

Uh oh! The Mayor endorses the FS initiative. SDSU is about to get burned without a stadium here in a couple or few years.

I guess SDSU doesn't have a much of a pull in San Diego as they think. The San Diego city leaders like to focus on pro teams I guess.
Umm...they just lost an NFL franchise..so...


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh...so? They sound like they are more interested in getting a MLS team than support SDSU even more. Even though the voters turn down the public $$$ for the Chargers, the MLS version is a much, much cheaper than the billion+ $$$ the Chargers were asking for.

Well at least we know why the Big West didn't invited UC-San Diego since they will soon get SDSU if the Aztecs don't shape up.

Not if SDSU declines post-Steve Fisher.
05-19-2017 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cardiff Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 765
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Marshall + UAB
Location: Columbus OH
Post: #67
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-19-2017 11:17 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 07:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Well at least we know why the Big West didn't invited UC-San Diego since they will soon get SDSU if the Aztecs don't shape up.
Not if SDSU declines post-Steve Fisher.
SDSU was a charter member of Big West

Hard to believe the Aztecs would simply shut-down football but if they do would MWC let them stay
05-20-2017 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,886
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 333
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #68
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
Why would they shut down football? That is to say there is nowhere temporary they can play for a season or two? There is no la d i n San Diego for them to purchase? There is no way for them to come up with even $60M for a cheap Phase I see for set stadium? Come on.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
05-20-2017 07:38 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 25,395
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 567
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #69
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-19-2017 07:22 PM)panama Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 07:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 07:12 PM)panama Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 06:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscent...?sid=76770

Uh oh! The Mayor endorses the FS initiative. SDSU is about to get burned without a stadium here in a couple or few years.

I guess SDSU doesn't have a much of a pull in San Diego as they think. The San Diego city leaders like to focus on pro teams I guess.
Umm...they just lost an NFL franchise..so...


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Uh...so? They sound like they are more interested in getting a MLS team than support SDSU even more. Even though the voters turn down the public $$$ for the Chargers, the MLS version is a much, much cheaper than the billion+ $$$ the Chargers were asking for.

Well at least we know why the Big West didn't invited UC-San Diego since they will soon get SDSU if the Aztecs don't shape up.
It's the consolation prize. Bottom line is they are a see cons class city now with only MLB. They are seriously overcompensatimg. In Atlanta all tu e major league franchises were kept and GSU gets a new stadium. If SD wanted to save face then would have figured out a way to keepl.yhe Chargers plus figure out a solution for MLS and SDSU football.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You forgot about the two hockey franchises Atlanta lost.

Atlanta caved more than any other city ever has, replacing 20 and 25 year old stadiums in very good shape.
05-20-2017 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 25,395
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 567
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #70
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-20-2017 07:38 AM)panama Wrote:  Why would they shut down football? That is to say there is nowhere temporary they can play for a season or two? There is no la d i n San Diego for them to purchase? There is no way for them to come up with even $60M for a cheap Phase I see for set stadium? Come on.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Other than the Padres stadium, there is no place other than tiny HS stadiums for them to play. No stadium, no football.
05-20-2017 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 25,395
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 567
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #71
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
Now with the Rubber Bowl falling apart, I figured Akron would use that to drop football. But even Akron managed to find a way to build a new stadium. So I figure SDSU will figure something out. They have really high prices and limited options for land, but they also have one or two deep pocketed supporters.
05-20-2017 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,392
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 340
I Root For: Tulane, Jags
Location:
Post: #72
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-20-2017 08:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-19-2017 07:22 PM)panama Wrote:  In Atlanta all the major league franchises were kept and GSU gets a new stadium.
You forgot about the two hockey franchises Atlanta lost.
The Flames moved to Canada in *1980*, for God's sake. That'd be like trolling San Diego for losing the Clippers to LA, which was actually more recent ('84).

The Thrashers, I'll grant that is a fair shot. By what can we (we Atlantans) say, except that we just don't care about the NHL? Same dynamic as Montréal and the Expos. *Not* the same dynamic as San Diego and the Chargers.
05-20-2017 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 297
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #73
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
As a native San Diegan, it was obvious there was going to be a stadium issue when the NFL forced the City to spend the money to expand Qualcomm to host the SB...only to host a SB and have the NFL complain about the stadium being too old and derelict for future SBs.

The writing was on the wall and at that point SDSU admin should have started putting together a legitimate stadium plan "just in case" they lose an NFL stadium available for use. SDSU's predicament is 100% on the lack of vision and foresight of its past admin. Now they are scrambling.

SDSU just needs a piece of the Qualcomm site for its stadium, that West Campus idea was all a pipe dream from the jump.

The City needs to sell and have that land developed to reap tax revenues.

Which leads us to SDSU needing a partnership agreement with a developer to get something built on the site.

SDSU football isn't going anywhere, so let's drop that nonsense right now. City want the Q demolished, that doesn't mean the City will get it demolished on its time frame. I think this whole Qualcomm development issue gets held up in the ballots (a land sale covering the entire Qualcomm site needs voter approval) and then it will get held up in the courts (see Petco lawsuits). So the Aztecs probably have another short lease in the Q after its current lease expires.

Lastly, due to the hold ups on development SD loses out on the next round of MLS expansion and Sac gets a bid.
05-20-2017 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,665
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 283
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #74
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-20-2017 12:39 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  As a native San Diegan . . .



05-20-2017 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,040
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 118
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #75
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
https://patch.com/california/san-diego/o...iego-mayor

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/busi...story.html

So now the city council rep of Mission Valley supports Soccer City along with the Mayor. 
So you have the mayor who is a SDSU alum and Steve Altman who part of the development team and is a longtime SDSU booster supporting this. 
I don't know what SDSU is thinking but they it seems they better change their mind before they get left out otherwise they could still use the stadium for football but at the 23k design and not at a 33k design if SDSU is involved.  
Also, Soccer City only needs a simple majority for approval since there is no tax payer funding for the proposal.
"Also joining him in support was Councilman Scott Sherman, whose district includes the Qualcomm Stadium property where a professional soccer stadium, housing, commercial development and parks would go."
“You know it is not absolutely perfect,” Sherman said of SoccerCity. “It wouldn’t be called a deal if it was absolutely perfect. Both sides have to give and take a little bit, but this provides revenue for the city, jobs for its citizens and it does it all without taxpayer dollars.”
(This post was last modified: 05-20-2017 01:12 PM by MWC Tex.)
05-20-2017 12:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 297
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #76
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-20-2017 12:49 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://patch.com/california/san-diego/o...iego-mayor

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/busi...story.html

So now the city council rep of Mission Valley supports Soccer City along with the Mayor. 
So you have the mayor who is a SDSU alum and Steve Altman who part of the development team and is a longtime SDSU booster supporting this. 
I don't know what SDSU is thinking but they it seems they better change their mind before they get left out otherwise they could still use the stadium for football but at the 23k design and not at a 33k design if SDSU is involved.  
Also, Soccer City only needs a simple majority for approval since there is no tax payer funding for the proposal.
"Also joining him in support was Councilman Scott Sherman, whose district includes the Qualcomm Stadium property where a professional soccer stadium, housing, commercial development and parks would go."
“You know it is not absolutely perfect,” Sherman said of SoccerCity. “It wouldn’t be called a deal if it was absolutely perfect. Both sides have to give and take a little bit, but this provides revenue for the city, jobs for its citizens and it does it all without taxpayer dollars.”

Sounds like the "agreement" between SDSU and the FSI group was not a good one for SDSU. Also the FSI group is just a handful of hedgefund folks looking to get a hold of the land and act as middlemen to sell if off to real developers. Not a surprise that the crooked SD leadership bought into their scheme.

The whole thing with FSI doesn't pass the smell test.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/busi...story.html
05-20-2017 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,247
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #77
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-20-2017 07:38 AM)panama Wrote:  There is no way for them to come up with even $60M for a cheap Phase I see for set stadium?

This is a burning question for cfb. Like, didn't Charlotte basically make a blueprint for the perfect customized venue? The base, while not huge, was cheap. They can make it expandable to a top scale in increments...why aren't more schools looking at that?

I would hate to see "the big four" venue routes continue onward:

1) Tear down and rebuild for hundreds of millions
2) Renovate and downsize for tens or hundreds of millions
3) Lean on pro venues despite their political issues
4) Build at max capacity as phase one

I really thought Charlotte's venue was going to change this game for smaller programs. Still waiting to see another school going that route...
05-20-2017 10:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,886
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 333
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #78
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-20-2017 10:18 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 07:38 AM)panama Wrote:  There is no way for them to come up with even $60M for a cheap Phase I see for set stadium?

This is a burning question for cfb. Like, didn't Charlotte basically make a blueprint for the perfect customized venue? The base, while not huge, was cheap. They can make it expandable to a top scale in increments...why aren't more schools looking at that?

I would hate to see "the big four" venue routes continue onward:

1) Tear down and rebuild for hundreds of millions
2) Renovate and downsize for tens or hundreds of millions
3) Lean on pro venues despite their political issues
4) Build at max capacity as phase one

I really thought Charlotte's venue was going to change this game for smaller programs. Still waiting to see another school going that route...
It's tough for public when there is no Phase II after Phase I.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
05-20-2017 10:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,665
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 283
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #79
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-20-2017 10:18 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(05-20-2017 07:38 AM)panama Wrote:  There is no way for them to come up with even $60M for a cheap Phase I see for set stadium?

This is a burning question for cfb. Like, didn't Charlotte basically make a blueprint for the perfect customized venue? The base, while not huge, was cheap. They can make it expandable to a top scale in increments...why aren't more schools looking at that?

I would hate to see "the big four" venue routes continue onward:

1) Tear down and rebuild for hundreds of millions
2) Renovate and downsize for tens or hundreds of millions
3) Lean on pro venues despite their political issues
4) Build at max capacity as phase one

I really thought Charlotte's venue was going to change this game for smaller programs. Still waiting to see another school going that route...

Charlotte wasn't dirt cheap. It cost $45M for 15,000 seats.

Leaving aside major renovations like TCU, here's a list of new college football stadiums built in the last 25 years. Some have used their new stadium to springboard into power conferences (Rutgers, Louisville, Utah). Most schools have drawn well. Akron, Florida Atlantic, SMU, North Texas and Tulane have not.

I think SDSU would do well.

COMPLETED - 15

1994
Rutgers - High Point Solutions Stadium
40,000 (since expanded to 52,494)
$28M ($44.6M in 2014 dollars plus $102M expansion)
FieldTurf (natural grass originally)
GSGSBH
$6.5M stadium naming rights for 10 years
2016 Attendance: 44,804

1998
Louisville - Papa John's Stadium
42,000 (since expanded to 55,000)
$63M originally ($91M in 2014 dollars plus $72M expansion)
FieldTurf
Rosser Int'l with Lucket & Farley
$5M initial stadium naming rights + $10M additional (for expansion), good through 2040
2016 Attendance: 54,065

Utah - Rice-Eccles Stadium
45,634 (since reduced to 45,017)
$50M ($72.3M in 2014 dollars)
FieldTurf (Sportgrass originally)
FFKR Architects
$10M donation from Eccles for stadium naming rights
2016 Attendance: 46,506

2000
SMU - Gerald J. Ford Stadium
32,000
$42M ($57.5M in 2014 dollars)
FieldTurf
Ellerbe Becket
$20M donation from Ford for stadium naming rights
2016 Attendance: 23,712

2003
UConn - Rentschler Field (off campus)
38,110 + 2,532 SRO
$91M ($117M in 2014 dollars)
Kentucky Bluegrass
Ellerbe Becket
Stadium named for founder of United Technologies Corp. UTX donated the land. New naming rights cannot be sold until 2018
2016 Attendance: 26,796

2006
Stanford - Stanford Stadium
50,000
$90M ($105M in 2014 dollars)
Natural Grass
Hoover & Associates
Naming rights unsold
2016 Attendance: 44,142

2007
UCF - Brighthouse Networks Stadium
45,323
$55M ($62.6M in 2014 dollars)
Bermuda Grass
360 Architecture
$12M stadium naming rights for 15 years
2016 Attendance: 35,802

2009
Minnesota - TCF Bank Stadium
50,805
$303M ($334M in 2014 dollars)
FieldTurf
Populous (formerly HOK Sport) with Architectural Alliance & Studio Hive
$35M stadium naming rights for 25 years
2016 Attenance: 43,814

Akron - Summa Field at Infocision Stadium
27,000 + SRO
$62M ($68M in 2014 dollars)
Prograss (Artificial)
HNTB Architecture
$10M stadium naming rights for 20 years
$5M field naming rights for 20 years
2016 Attendance: 10,337

2011
North Texas - Apogee Stadium
30,850
$78M ($81M in 2014 dollars)
PowerBlade HP+ (artificial)
HKS
$20M stadium naming rights for 20 years
2016 Attendance: 19,878

Florida Atlantic
29,419
$62M ($65M in 2014 dollars)
Bermuda Grass
HKS with Schenkel Shultz
$6M stadium naming rights for 12 years w/GEO Group REJECTED
2016 Attendance: 10,073

2013
UNC Charlotte - McColl-Richardson Field at Jerry Richardson Stadium
15,300
$45M
Hellas Matrix (artificial)
DLR Group with Jackson Peer Architects
$2M field naming rights
$10M stadium naming rights
2016 Attendance: 14,192

2014
Baylor - John Eddie Williams Field at McLane Stadium
45,140 (including SRO, closer to 42,000 seats)
$266M
Hellas Matrix (artificial)
Populous (formerly HOK Sport)
$25M donation from Drayton McLane for the stadium to be named McLane Stadium
$17.5M donation from John Eddie Williams for field naming rights
2016 Attendance: 45,838

Houston - John O'Quinn Field at TDECU Stadium
40,000 (plus SRO)
$128M
UBU Speed Series S5-M (artificial)
DLR Group with PageSoutherlandPage and Smith & Co Architects
$5M donation from O'Quinn Estate to retain field naming rights
$15M stadium naming rights for 10 years with an option for 5 more years at $7.5M more
2016 Attendance: 38,953

Tulane - Benson Field at Yulman Stadium
23,000 (+ SRO)
$75M
UBU Speed Series S5-M turf
Gould Evans
$15M stadium naming rights
$7.5M field naming rights
2016 Attendance: 22,718

UNDER CONSTRUCTION - 1

2017
Colorado State - Sonny Lubick Field at X Stadium
36,000 + SRO
$220M
Shaw Powerblade Pro (artificial)
Populus
Stadium Naming rights as yet unsold
$20M anonymous field naming rights over 30 years to honor Coach Lubick
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2017 10:11 PM by CougarRed.)
05-20-2017 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,247
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #80
RE: SDSU says it's cutting off talks with FS Investors about Qualcomm Stadium site
(05-20-2017 10:51 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Charlotte wasn't dirt cheap. It cost $45M for 15,000 seats.

No, when looking at it from cost to seating, it's ridiculously high. But, the stadium is expandable to 40-45K as is, and the base, "Phase I" product is a pretty clever foundation. Dig a hole into the ground, amphitheater-like, and build a horseshoe (traditional and effective for seating numbers and panoramic viewing experiences). All the stuff is there for a good expansion with at least two decks. Was part of the reason it cost as much was because of some rock they encountered early on? Or, is that a reason why CSU's costs so much (they can't really dig down, or, they can, and that's partly why it isn't cheap to build the thing)? Maybe both?

I remember when Charlotte announced its venue plans it was obvious they weren't giving the vibe they were entitled to D1 status, but the venue wouldn't stop them moving straight up and out of FCS and into FBS if it came to it. It was model...at least, imo. It's high for a first phase, but expansion would redeem the cost because future growth was built into the frame, making additions cheaper.

Thanks for those numbers, though. Putting the projects into perspective, Rice's renovation was $44.5 million? It's not cheap to upkeep an older venue. And Rice's was one of the good ones.
05-21-2017 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.