(10-04-2021 10:50 AM)yakko Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 10:36 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  I wonder if the University would accept if the City offered to deed the Liberty Bowl and it's ground to the university for $1? I doubt the University would go for it--- but there's something distasteful about putting University money in the city's stadium that they refuse or can't keep up to standards. And the comparison to Cincinnati - University of Cincinnati actually owns that structure.

too many ADA issues that the university would be liable for taking care of.

More than that. Ever been inside the liberty bowl during a hard rain? leaks in lots of places water should not be getting into.

(10-04-2021 11:10 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  Whoever is the Big 12 people "deeply involved" in the Big 12 expansion that says the stadium is a problem or needs to be addressed sounds ridiculous. Why would the stadium be an issue at all, unless it was unsafe or hazardous. The ADA issues have been put to bed. It doesn't adversely affect the conference in any way. Calkins dropped the ball by not asking for an explanation or follow up. In fact I doubt anyone with Big 12 ties said that at all.

Really you have any evidence for that? That Calkins, for some unknown reason, simply made it all up. In fact, what Calkins said is exactly what I would have expected to hear considering circumstances. Boise decides to upgrade their stadium. USF announces they are breaking ground on a new stadium. San Diego State new stadium. Maybe it's a coincidence.... and Calkins is just lying. In any event he did not say they were Big 12 people --- as I posted he said they were "deeply involved" with the strong implication that they would know.

(10-04-2021 11:39 AM)TGTiger Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 10:50 AM)yakko Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 10:36 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  I wonder if the University would accept if the City offered to deed the Liberty Bowl and it's ground to the university for $1? I doubt the University would go for it--- but there's something distasteful about putting University money in the city's stadium that they refuse or can't keep up to standards. And the comparison to Cincinnati - University of Cincinnati actually owns that structure.

too many ADA issues that the university would be liable for taking care of.

More than that. Ever been inside the liberty bowl during a hard rain? leaks in lots of places water should not be getting into.

It's been years for me, but I remember many hard rains before we moved away from Memphis. It's time for the UofM to cut their losses and go their own way with the stadium issue. Especially if they were caught off guard with the naming issue and weren't involved.

(10-04-2021 11:38 AM)TGTiger Wrote:  https://dailymemphian.com/section/sports...renovation

The headline says a lot. Headline left out the part about who foots the bill. Of course I'm not a subscriber so I have no idea what else it says.

Didn’t Calkins say our omission from the big12 was because of something else? He brought that up a couple of weeks ago.

(10-04-2021 11:51 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 11:38 AM)TGTiger Wrote:  https://dailymemphian.com/section/sports...renovation

The headline says a lot. Headline left out the part about who foots the bill. Of course I'm not a subscriber so I have no idea what else it says.

The mayor set up a false equivalency. Said we should pay the lion's share of the costs because Cincy owns their stadium and they paid for all of theirs.

(10-04-2021 11:56 AM)450bench Wrote:  Didn’t Calkins say our omission front the big12 was because of something else? He brought that up a couple of weeks ago.

It is about the clicks...

Maintain the conversation and stay relevant...Even if you have to play both sides of an issue.

Provide the information you have as soon as you get it.

(10-04-2021 11:48 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 11:10 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  Whoever is the Big 12 people "deeply involved" in the Big 12 expansion that says the stadium is a problem or needs to be addressed sounds ridiculous. Why would the stadium be an issue at all, unless it was unsafe or hazardous. The ADA issues have been put to bed. It doesn't adversely affect the conference in any way. Calkins dropped the ball by not asking for an explanation or follow up. In fact I doubt anyone with Big 12 ties said that at all.

Really you have any evidence for that? That Calkins, for some unknown reason, simply made it all up. In fact, what Calkins said is exactly what I would have expected to hear considering circumstances. Boise decides to upgrade their stadium. USF announces they are breaking ground on a new stadium. San Diego State new stadium. Maybe it's a coincidence.... and Calkins is just lying. In any event he did not say they were Big 12 people --- as I posted he said they were "deeply involved" with the strong implication that they would know.

Don't forget President Rudd suddenly doing a 180 on the on-campus stadium. Mystery of mysteries LOL

(10-04-2021 10:04 AM)jets521 Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 09:43 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  So there you have it --little left to the imagination - next move?

new stadium in West Memphis, Arkansas

Offer pup racing on off days.

(10-04-2021 11:39 AM)TGTiger Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 10:50 AM)yakko Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 10:36 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  I wonder if the University would accept if the City offered to deed the Liberty Bowl and it's ground to the university for $1? I doubt the University would go for it--- but there's something distasteful about putting University money in the city's stadium that they refuse or can't keep up to standards. And the comparison to Cincinnati - University of Cincinnati actually owns that structure.

too many ADA issues that the university would be liable for taking care of.

More than that. Ever been inside the liberty bowl during a hard rain? leaks in lots of places water should not be getting into.

The 2012 season opener was exceptional, but it was raining a lot under the stands during the game.

(10-04-2021 11:48 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 11:10 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  Whoever is the Big 12 people "deeply involved" in the Big 12 expansion that says the stadium is a problem or needs to be addressed sounds ridiculous. Why would the stadium be an issue at all, unless it was unsafe or hazardous. The ADA issues have been put to bed. It doesn't adversely affect the conference in any way. Calkins dropped the ball by not asking for an explanation or follow up. In fact I doubt anyone with Big 12 ties said that at all.

Really you have any evidence for that? That Calkins, for some unknown reason, simply made it all up. In fact, what Calkins said is exactly what I would have expected to hear considering circumstances. Boise decides to upgrade their stadium. USF announces they are breaking ground on a new stadium. San Diego State new stadium. Maybe it's a coincidence.... and Calkins is just lying. In any event he did not say they were Big 12 people --- as I posted he said they were "deeply involved" with the strong implication that they would know.

Sure.

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?

In just the last month didn't Rudd come out in favor of the on-campus stadium idea?

If we have to foot the bill then the shc can go kick rocks or work around our schedule

(10-04-2021 11:28 AM)holyterror Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 11:21 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 11:16 AM)holyterror Wrote:  How trustworthy is Calkins?
Not being snarky here, I’m new to the discussion.

Well, he’s a far left liberal so that means he’s a hypocritical liar.

Well, he’s a sports journalist, and modern sports journalism is always agenda-driven. My question, I guess is, what’s his stake in this issue?

Clicks on his web site or people calling in to his show. Just so he can lord over them like some Grand Poobah...

(10-04-2021 11:10 AM)tigerlands Wrote:  Whoever is the Big 12 people "deeply involved" in the Big 12 expansion that says the stadium is a problem or needs to be addressed sounds ridiculous. Why would the stadium be an issue at all, unless it was unsafe or hazardous. The ADA issues have been put to bed. It doesn't adversely affect the conference in any way. Calkins dropped the ball by not asking for an explanation or follow up. In fact I doubt anyone with Big 12 ties said that at all.

Somewhat agree

He could clear up that he is not trolling by simply giving a name

I have no issue with the reporting and certainly believe it. My question is why news about the stadium replacement need/requirement is just now appearing? For years I've heard the media discuss the benefits of a newer stadium and I have heard comments to the effect that the stadium has good sight lines, they have been improving the venue (sound, scoreboard, tiger lane, field, etc) along with some vague comments about press box issues. Have never heard any overly harsh words about the stadium other than it is old. Quite honestly the most vocal group for replacement has been the posters on the board. Again, I have no issue with anyone wanting a replacement but would have preferred to have heard specifics long ago from the media.

(10-04-2021 09:43 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Said this morning on his show after talking with Strickland. During the interview itself Strickland said they have architects looking at possible renovations. Strickland said the cost will have to be borne by the University. He added that Cincinnati's stadium was renovated without State or City money. Strickland said he did not know what the architect would suggest and did not preclude the possibility that renovations would be more costly then simply building a new stadium. After the interview Calkins said that he has talked to people "deeply involved" in the Big 12 expansion and that one of the primary issues that needs to be addressed the state of the Liberty Bowl. So there you have it --little left to the imagination - next move?

Who here said Strickland was smart? Nippert is one of the oldest on campus stadiums in America, of course they paid for it.

Good grief. It's hard for me to even relate to this level of stupidity

(10-04-2021 01:29 PM)murphster Wrote:  I have no issue with the reporting and certainly believe it. My question is why news about the stadium replacement need/requirement is just now appearing? For years I've heard the media discuss the benefits of a newer stadium and I have heard comments to the effect that the stadium has good sight lines, they have been improving the venue (sound, scoreboard, tiger lane, field, etc) along with some vague comments about press box issues. Have never heard any overly harsh words about the stadium other than it is old. Quite honestly the most vocal group for replacement has been the posters on the board. Again, I have no issue with anyone wanting a replacement but would have preferred to have heard specifics long ago from the media.

ADA issues costing $50 million and a new stadium were discussed in 2004. The Heery Report was commissioned in 2006. It is documented that the city didn't even perform routine upkeep for 35 years and the stadium was falling apart. Now almost 20 years later they are still talking about sinking useless money into it.

The sombrero is the same as bell bottoms and the hula hoop. It had its time, but the stadium ages itself every single second that it is shown on tv.

IF you are even going to attempt to update the stadium in any kind of meaningful way, it will cost over $100 million, and it will STILL be a rental and will STILL not be on campus. Putting even a dime into it fits perfectly into the city's fail playbook with the LB when the NFL was a possibility, The Pyramid and naming the team the Houn Dogs or whatever.

How can the MSC still be standing? How is that possible?

(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.