(03-28-2018 08:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 06:30 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Yeah I think the financing of it is pretty interesting. This is the second college stadium (outside of NFL stadiums) that I know of that is not owned by the university. The other being Rentschler Field.

Are there any others?

Liberty Bowl - Memphis
Ladd Peebles - Mobile
Alamodome - UT-San Antonio
Rose Bowl - UCLA
LA Coliseum - USC
Aloha Stadium - Hawaii

Just keeping it in FBS, also: Miami, South Florida, Pittsburgh, Temple, UNLV, San Diego State

Although some of those are simply sharing a pro stadium.

Right. Miami, South Florida, Pittsburgh, and Temple are sharing NFL stadiums. SDSU is using a stadium owned by the city and abandoned by the NFL.

Man, this news and the subsequent terms of payments from every party doesn't look good.

The city's going to be paying for two stadiums, three if you count the arena. The AA park has $3.6M in debt service yearly.

The BJCC has renovation plans which read like they want to build/renovate the current venue into an 1998-2003 style of arena...in 2020.

UAB is going to try and find $4M/year? Wait for those student fees to go up... AGAIN.

(03-28-2018 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  It does seem to be walkable, albeit a long one, from campus at under 2 miles.

I wouldn't want to walk it at night. It changes the whole understanding of being a fan. If being a fan means a likely victim of crime then it's fine. I wonder if U.A.B. could get all 1 PM kickoffs?

(03-28-2018 06:48 PM)NoDak Wrote:  UCLA, UTSA, Tulsa?

USF, soon to be UNLV, USC in NFL stadiums

Tulsa plays in an on-campus, university-owned stadium.

If I’m not mistaken, UTEP used eminent domain against El Paso County and bought it for $1 about 15 years ago. Best purchase UTEP has ever made.

As for UAB, they deserve all the good things coming their way after what they went through.

(03-28-2018 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  It does seem to be walkable, albeit a long one, from campus at under 2 miles.

I wouldn't want to walk it at night. It changes the whole understanding of being a fan. If being a fan means a likely victim of crime then it's fine. I wonder if U.A.B. could get all 1 PM kickoffs?

Its better than the area around Legion Field isn't it?

(03-28-2018 08:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 06:30 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Yeah I think the financing of it is pretty interesting. This is the second college stadium (outside of NFL stadiums) that I know of that is not owned by the university. The other being Rentschler Field.

Are there any others?

Liberty Bowl - Memphis
Ladd Peebles - Mobile
Alamodome - UT-San Antonio
Rose Bowl - UCLA
LA Coliseum - USC
Aloha Stadium - Hawaii

Just keeping it in FBS, also: Miami, South Florida, Pittsburgh, Temple, UNLV, San Diego State

The University of Pittsburgh are co-owners of Heinz Field... Or in other words, they "own" it as much as the Steelers do. (The City, does not have a stake in the Stadium, I believe...it was a joint project between the Steelers (franchise) and the University of Pittsburgh.)

(03-28-2018 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  It does seem to be walkable, albeit a long one, from campus at under 2 miles.

I wouldn't want to walk it at night. It changes the whole understanding of being a fan. If being a fan means a likely victim of crime then it's fine. I wonder if U.A.B. could get all 1 PM kickoffs?

It's straight up 20th Street, the main drag in Birmingham. No more dangerous than any other large American city.

BUT while it's about two miles to the closest part of campus, that's the med school on that end. Undergrad student dorms are on the exact opposite edge of campus.

(03-28-2018 07:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Anything with that much money involved that has to go through the city of Birmingham is doomed to be bungled, and suffer massive cost overruns. It would be far better if the City of Birmingham ceded Legion Field to UAB and let UAB administer the construction of a new stadium.

Which would open it to "oversight" by the Board of Trustees.

If I have to choose a pack of corrupt pols, I'll go with the locals over the bammers, thank you.

(03-28-2018 09:24 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Man, this news and the subsequent terms of payments from every party doesn't look good.

The city's going to be paying for two stadiums, three if you count the arena. The AA park has $3.6M in debt service yearly.

The BJCC has renovation plans which read like they want to build/renovate the current venue into an 1998-2003 style of arena...in 2020.

UAB is going to try and find $4M/year? Wait for those student fees to go up... AGAIN.

From my understanding, this is going to come from sponsors and naming rights. I doubt any comes from UAB directly.

(03-29-2018 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  It does seem to be walkable, albeit a long one, from campus at under 2 miles.

I wouldn't want to walk it at night. It changes the whole understanding of being a fan. If being a fan means a likely victim of crime then it's fine. I wonder if U.A.B. could get all 1 PM kickoffs?

Its better than the area around Legion Field isn't it?

By degree.

Happy for UAB!

(03-29-2018 11:05 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Anything with that much money involved that has to go through the city of Birmingham is doomed to be bungled, and suffer massive cost overruns. It would be far better if the City of Birmingham ceded Legion Field to UAB and let UAB administer the construction of a new stadium.

Which would open it to "oversight" by the Board of Trustees.

If I have to choose a pack of corrupt pols, I'll go with the locals over the bammers, thank you.

And that is exactly why the taxpayers dollars of the citizens of Alabama don't need to be invested in it. It is either under the oversight of the state or it is not. You can't have it both ways and the chief reasons UAB's football program was being shuddered a few years ago were the lack of participation in attendance by alumni, and having to deal with the corruption of the city government of Birmingham via the lease on Lesion Field as the rest of us call it. A condemned upper deck, ancient artificial turf which was hell on the joints, toilets that didn't work, and high crime. And no matter what was put into it the city squandered the funds and did little to remedy the conditions.

The whole situation wreaked and the state has more important and better places to spend its limited resources. I'm not against UAB sports, but it needs an oversight that is not tied to the Beluga thinking corrupt city officials.

(03-29-2018 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 10:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 11:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  It does seem to be walkable, albeit a long one, from campus at under 2 miles.

I wouldn't want to walk it at night. It changes the whole understanding of being a fan. If being a fan means a likely victim of crime then it's fine. I wonder if U.A.B. could get all 1 PM kickoffs?

Its better than the area around Legion Field isn't it?

By degree.

Much better than the Legion field area. I would put it on par with the galleria area for crime. There is a lot of security (BPD and CAP) in the convention/business district).

(03-29-2018 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 11:05 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Anything with that much money involved that has to go through the city of Birmingham is doomed to be bungled, and suffer massive cost overruns. It would be far better if the City of Birmingham ceded Legion Field to UAB and let UAB administer the construction of a new stadium.

Which would open it to "oversight" by the Board of Trustees.

If I have to choose a pack of corrupt pols, I'll go with the locals over the bammers, thank you.

And that is exactly why the taxpayers dollars of the citizens of Alabama don't need to be invested in it. It is either under the oversight of the state or it is not. You can't have it both ways and the chief reasons UAB's football program was being shuddered a few years ago were the lack of participation in attendance by alumni, and having to deal with the corruption of the city government of Birmingham via the lease on Lesion Field as the rest of us call it. A condemned upper deck, ancient artificial turf which was hell on the joints, toilets that didn't work, and high crime. And no matter what was put into it the city squandered the funds and did little to remedy the conditions.

The whole situation wreaked and the state has more important and better places to spend its limited resources. I'm not against UAB sports, but it needs an oversight that is not tied to the Beluga thinking corrupt city officials.

UAB is just trying to get what its football program wants in the easiest way possible. San Diego State, for example, has a ballot measure this year that would require the city to sell the football stadium site to SDSU, no doubt at a price much more favorable to SDSU than the city. Both are examples of a public university asking its city, rather than its university governors, to help fund a solution to the university's football stadium issues.

(03-29-2018 10:40 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 06:30 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Yeah I think the financing of it is pretty interesting. This is the second college stadium (outside of NFL stadiums) that I know of that is not owned by the university. The other being Rentschler Field.

Are there any others?

Liberty Bowl - Memphis
Ladd Peebles - Mobile
Alamodome - UT-San Antonio
Rose Bowl - UCLA
LA Coliseum - USC
Aloha Stadium - Hawaii

Just keeping it in FBS, also: Miami, South Florida, Pittsburgh, Temple, UNLV, San Diego State

The University of Pittsburgh are co-owners of Heinz Field... Or in other words, they "own" it as much as the Steelers do. (The City, does not have a stake in the Stadium, I believe...it was a joint project between the Steelers (franchise) and the University of Pittsburgh.)

No. The Steelers operate the stadium.
The owner is a city/county joint stadium authority, the SEA-PAC. Steelers only put in $76M towards the project with money borrowed from the league.

(03-29-2018 12:56 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 10:40 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 06:30 PM)McKinney Wrote:  Yeah I think the financing of it is pretty interesting. This is the second college stadium (outside of NFL stadiums) that I know of that is not owned by the university. The other being Rentschler Field.

Are there any others?

Liberty Bowl - Memphis
Ladd Peebles - Mobile
Alamodome - UT-San Antonio
Rose Bowl - UCLA
LA Coliseum - USC
Aloha Stadium - Hawaii

Just keeping it in FBS, also: Miami, South Florida, Pittsburgh, Temple, UNLV, San Diego State

The University of Pittsburgh are co-owners of Heinz Field... Or in other words, they "own" it as much as the Steelers do. (The City, does not have a stake in the Stadium, I believe...it was a joint project between the Steelers (franchise) and the University of Pittsburgh.)

No. The Steelers operate the stadium.
The owner is a city/county joint stadium authority, the SEA-PAC. Steelers only put in $76M towards the project with money borrowed from the league.

No, Sam Boyd Stadium in Las Vegas and all the land around it is owned by UNLV. See so many errors on that one.
Probably because it’s several miles from campus. ?

(03-28-2018 08:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 06:30 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Yeah I think the financing of it is pretty interesting. This is the second college stadium (outside of NFL stadiums) that I know of that is not owned by the university. The other being Rentschler Field.

Are there any others?

Liberty Bowl - Memphis
Ladd Peebles - Mobile
Alamodome - UT-San Antonio
Rose Bowl - UCLA
LA Coliseum - USC
Aloha Stadium - Hawaii

Just keeping it in FBS, also: Miami, South Florida, Pittsburgh, Temple, UNLV, San Diego State

UNLV owns Sam Boyd Stadium. A new Raider stadium goes up in 2020 but that still doesn’t mean UNLV will tear down their stadium like everyone on here thinks.
Pittsburgh Steelers own but Pitt gets a cut of concessions and parking so their fans inaccurately say they are co-owners.

(03-29-2018 01:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 08:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 06:30 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Yeah I think the financing of it is pretty interesting. This is the second college stadium (outside of NFL stadiums) that I know of that is not owned by the university. The other being Rentschler Field.

Are there any others?

Liberty Bowl - Memphis
Ladd Peebles - Mobile
Alamodome - UT-San Antonio
Rose Bowl - UCLA
LA Coliseum - USC
Aloha Stadium - Hawaii

Just keeping it in FBS, also: Miami, South Florida, Pittsburgh, Temple, UNLV, San Diego State

UNLV owns Sam Boyd Stadium. A new Raider stadium goes up in 2020 but that still doesn’t mean UNLV will tear down their stadium like everyone on here thinks.
Pittsburgh Steelers own but Pitt gets a cut of concessions and parking so their fans inaccurately say they are co-owners.

I've read that UNLV is looking at various proposals to sell the property for development, keeping it going as a venue that can handle events not sized for the new dome but appropriate to hold outdoors, among other ideas.

(03-29-2018 12:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-29-2018 11:05 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's the city's stadium, not UAB's, but a good development for them nonetheless.

Anything with that much money involved that has to go through the city of Birmingham is doomed to be bungled, and suffer massive cost overruns. It would be far better if the City of Birmingham ceded Legion Field to UAB and let UAB administer the construction of a new stadium.

Which would open it to "oversight" by the Board of Trustees.

If I have to choose a pack of corrupt pols, I'll go with the locals over the bammers, thank you.

And that is exactly why the taxpayers dollars of the citizens of Alabama don't need to be invested in it. It is either under the oversight of the state or it is not. You can't have it both ways and the chief reasons UAB's football program was being shuddered a few years ago were the lack of participation in attendance by alumni, and having to deal with the corruption of the city government of Birmingham via the lease on Lesion Field as the rest of us call it. A condemned upper deck, ancient artificial turf which was hell on the joints, toilets that didn't work, and high crime. And no matter what was put into it the city squandered the funds and did little to remedy the conditions.

The whole situation wreaked and the state has more important and better places to spend its limited resources. I'm not against UAB sports, but it needs an oversight that is not tied to the Beluga thinking corrupt city officials.

UAB is just trying to get what its football program wants in the easiest way possible. San Diego State, for example, has a ballot measure this year that would require the city to sell the football stadium site to SDSU, no doubt at a price much more favorable to SDSU than the city. Both are examples of a public university asking its city, rather than its university governors, to help fund a solution to the university's football stadium issues.

Meh, not entirely.

The funds are to revitalize the BJCC. The new stadium is just a part of that. The legislature approved a tax in Jefferson county to help pay for some of it.

It's a good thing for the city in the long run--and they need it.

The whole UAB football joke isn't the central issue here. I'm happy that the people of Jefferson county/Birmingham will eat the costs, and most importantly the costs of the tickets they have to and will have to buy, instead of the University which has a lot more important things to do than spend money on that.

I hope it works for them since it is no longer the rest of the state's problem.