The city in no way views the university as an afterthought

Just stop

(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

Like CRM, I am a resident of the city. I do appreciate the history of LBMS, but it is old, and if it turns out that the architectural report has a way to refurbish it in a way that will truly improve it, then okay (if NOT financed mainly by the U of M). If the U is to be required to raise $50 million for the renovation, I am all for building an OCS in the 45,000 seat range, expandable to 65,000 in two expansions of 10,000 each if and when needed.

In my mind funding needs to come from a Cap campaign, state support, student fees, and ticket/seat license. I would commit to a 5 year plan of donating some amount, plus a seat license once built.

My caveat is BIGXII membership must be granted prior to breaking ground.

Just my thoughts.

(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

With the current project going on around the LB, it would benefit the city to work with the University to relocate. They get to demolish the LB and the coliseum and have all that additional available space for their existing project. I have to think with all the news around the naming rights, and now these ongoing discussions about the future of the LB, I don't believe in coincidence. Very well could be wrong...

(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

I think the university put 17 million dollars into the pool of money that helped build the Pyramid. I wonder if the University is getting it's pro rata share of rent money that the city is collecting from Bass Pro?

The state contributed $20 million, and my memory is that was for the UofM. I simply googled for funding of the pyramid.

(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.

(10-04-2021 03:33 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(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

I think the university put 17 million dollars into the pool of money that helped build the Pyramid. I wonder if the University is getting it's pro rata share of rent money that the city is collecting from Bass Pro?

That was going to be my next question when someone answered it; which someone did below at $20 million out of the $65 million it cost to build it. Are we getting paid 30% of the rent from the new tenant?

My next question (obviously) is wouldn't it be nice if the city funded 30% of the cost of an OCS? Fair is fair.

(10-04-2021 04:06 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  

(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.

I understand the sentimental value because I witnessed this happening in my city with the Montreal Forum. I literally saw the most famous hockey arena in the history of hockey arenas, replaced; the hockey equivalent to Yankee Stadium. The scenario was very similar as far as sightlines go; but multiply everything else by 100 when you compare game day atmosphere, history, and tradition.

(10-04-2021 04:13 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 03:33 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(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

I think the university put 17 million dollars into the pool of money that helped build the Pyramid. I wonder if the University is getting it's pro rata share of rent money that the city is collecting from Bass Pro?

That was going to be my next question when someone answered it; which someone did below at $20 million out of the $65 million it cost to build it. Are we getting paid 30% of the rent from the new tenant?

My next question (obviously) is wouldn't it be nice if the city funded 30% of the cost of an OCS? Fair is fair.

Anyone know?

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

Yep----A week before the BIG12 chose (THE 4) I posted a thread with the real reason why WE WOULD NOT BE #2 ON EVERYBODY'S LIST ONLY BEHIND CINDY. I was demonized

DAYS AFTER WE WERE NOT #2 in EVERYONE'S LIST ONLY BEHIND CINCINNATI ---Calkins wrote the article implying the same thing that I said a week before we were left out---and was not #2 on everyone's list only behind CINDY

On the topic of OCS and LIBERTY MEMORIAL STADIUM----a lack of OCS has ZERO to do with it

If we build a OCS it should 55K plus-----WHY YOU ASK--BECAUSE THE BIG12 has told BOISE to INCREASE the seats at their stadium that now is 37K

I say either way ---we build or stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM--we will need the seats if we get in a POWER 5

THe BIG12 has told Boise to increase the seats---I can just hear the excitement of the BIG12 when we tell them that we will be LIMITING the number of fans that can come to our games

DOES ANYONE ON HERE REALLY THINK THAT ITS BETTER TO HAVE 40K fans in a sell-out AS OPPOSED to 49K fans in a 60K seat stadium

MEMPHIS HAS THOUSANDS of fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS---but have been attending 2-3 games a year FOR 40 YEARS. BUILDING a mickey mouse 40K seat stadium would screw 3/4 of the fanbase---that walk up buy tickets when they are able

If ATTENDANCE was a factor ----we would have gotten in when they chose the 4

HAVING EMPTY SEATS DID NOT KEEP US OUT

LOL YEAH IT MAKES SENSE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF FANS AT GAMES LOL----

PEOPLE ON HERE SAYING MAKE IT 40K and we can expand it later LOL-----WE ALREADY HAVE A STADIUM THAT WE DON"T HAVE TO EXPAND LATER

LOL--yeah make it 40K and tell the thousands of TIGER fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS --screw you we will expand 10 years from now so you POOR people can attend

AGAIN they told BOISE to expand----our people on here think its a good idea to DECREASE the attendance at our games LOL

I can here it now --HEY BIG12 --you told BOISE to go to 50K plus---but we think its better to have 40K fans than occasionally having 45K 50K +55K + because we think its bad to have empty seats ---even though FOR YEARS WE HAVE AVERAGED MORE FANS THAN UCF--HOU--CINN----WE THINK ITS BETTER TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF FANS THAT CAN ATTEND OUR GAMES----and no we do not think we will be the LAUGHING STOCK of the NATION with thinking that its better to have LESS FANS THAN MORE FANS

(10-04-2021 04:23 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 04:06 PM)CRM114 Wrote:  

(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.

I understand the sentimental value because I witnessed this happening in my city with the Montreal Forum. I literally saw the most famous hockey arena in the history of hockey arenas, replaced; the hockey equivalent to Yankee Stadium. The scenario was very similar as far as sightlines go; but multiply everything else by 100 when you compare game day atmosphere, history, and tradition.

It would be sad to see the LB go but the atmosphere of an OCS would make me forget about it pretty quick. My hesitation is all about financial feasibility at this point. I have trouble making the numbers work, but I admit that I'm making mostly educated guesses at the numbers.

As I recall it took a Herculean effort to get the tiger logo painted on the field. I mean what was that about?

(10-04-2021 12:09 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(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

We have been preparing for the next round of expansion for 5 years---if a lack of OCS was the reason we were left out --then he should be fired now-----he should have been promoting the OCS for 5 years --instead of AFTER WE WERE LEFT OUT

The reality is---HE KNOWS IT HAD ZERO TO DO WITH US BEING LEFT OUT-----and if by chance it was a factor ---then he has been derelict as PRES. was he really that dumb---should he not have been yelling OCS 5 years ago--instead of after the fact. He is just covering his AZZ for us not getting in

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE LIGHT BULB HAS JUST CAME ON WITH OUR PRES-------was he that NAIVE not to know that WOW I NEED TO BE TOUTING OCS the last 5 years

A LACK OF OCS HAD ZERO TO DO WITH US BEING LEFT OUT

MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM HAD ZERO TO DO WITH US BEING LEFT OUT

HAVING A LESS THAN SOLD OUT STADIUM HAD ZERO TO DO WITH US BEING LEFT OUT

HAVING EMPTY SEATS HAD ZERO TO DO WITH US BEING LEFT OUT

HECK --JUST BUILD A 20K seat arena and sell out every game-----screw the fans that attend 2-3 games per year that can't afford season tickets ---but hey we can claim ZERO EMPTY SEATS

(10-04-2021 05:43 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

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

Yep----A week before the BIG12 chose (THE 4) I posted a thread with the real reason why WE WOULD NOT BE #2 ON EVERYBODY'S LIST ONLY BEHIND CINDY. I was demonized

DAYS AFTER WE WERE NOT #2 in EVERYONE'S LIST ONLY BEHIND CINCINNATI ---Calkins wrote the article implying the same thing that I said a week before we were left out---and was not #2 on everyone's list only behind CINDY

On the topic of OCS and LIBERTY MEMORIAL STADIUM----a lack of OCS has ZERO to do with it

If we build a OCS it should 55K plus-----WHY YOU ASK--BECAUSE THE BIG12 has told BOISE to INCREASE the seats at their stadium that now is 37K

I say either way ---we build or stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM--we will need the seats if we get in a POWER 5

THe BIG12 has told Boise to increase the seats---I can just hear the excitement of the BIG12 when we tell them that we will be LIMITING the number of fans that can come to our games

DOES ANYONE ON HERE REALLY THINK THAT ITS BETTER TO HAVE 40K fans in a sell-out AS OPPOSED to 49K fans in a 60K seat stadium

MEMPHIS HAS THOUSANDS of fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS---but have been attending 2-3 games a year FOR 40 YEARS. BUILDING a mickey mouse 40K seat stadium would screw 3/4 of the fanbase---that walk up buy tickets when they are able

If ATTENDANCE was a factor ----we would have gotten in when they chose the 4

HAVING EMPTY SEATS DID NOT KEEP US OUT

LOL YEAH IT MAKES SENSE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF FANS AT GAMES LOL----

PEOPLE ON HERE SAYING MAKE IT 40K and we can expand it later LOL-----WE ALREADY HAVE A STADIUM THAT WE DON"T HAVE TO EXPAND LATER

LOL--yeah make it 40K and tell the thousands of TIGER fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS --screw you we will expand 10 years from now so you POOR people can attend

AGAIN they told BOISE to expand----our people on here think its a good idea to DECREASE the attendance at our games LOL

I can here it now --HEY BIG12 --you told BOISE to go to 50K plus---but we think its better to have 40K fans than occasionally having 45K 50K +55K + because we think its bad to have empty seats ---even though FOR YEARS WE HAVE AVERAGED MORE FANS THAN UCF--HOU--CINN----WE THINK ITS BETTER TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF FANS THAT CAN ATTEND OUR GAMES----and no we do not think we will be the LAUGHING STOCK of the NATION with thinking that its better to have LESS FANS THAN MORE FANS

I can’t believe it but I finally agree with what you said… valid points

(10-04-2021 06:00 PM)tpaw09 Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 05:43 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

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

Yep----A week before the BIG12 chose (THE 4) I posted a thread with the real reason why WE WOULD NOT BE #2 ON EVERYBODY'S LIST ONLY BEHIND CINDY. I was demonized

DAYS AFTER WE WERE NOT #2 in EVERYONE'S LIST ONLY BEHIND CINCINNATI ---Calkins wrote the article implying the same thing that I said a week before we were left out---and was not #2 on everyone's list only behind CINDY

On the topic of OCS and LIBERTY MEMORIAL STADIUM----a lack of OCS has ZERO to do with it

If we build a OCS it should 55K plus-----WHY YOU ASK--BECAUSE THE BIG12 has told BOISE to INCREASE the seats at their stadium that now is 37K

I say either way ---we build or stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM--we will need the seats if we get in a POWER 5

THe BIG12 has told Boise to increase the seats---I can just hear the excitement of the BIG12 when we tell them that we will be LIMITING the number of fans that can come to our games

DOES ANYONE ON HERE REALLY THINK THAT ITS BETTER TO HAVE 40K fans in a sell-out AS OPPOSED to 49K fans in a 60K seat stadium

MEMPHIS HAS THOUSANDS of fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS---but have been attending 2-3 games a year FOR 40 YEARS. BUILDING a mickey mouse 40K seat stadium would screw 3/4 of the fanbase---that walk up buy tickets when they are able

If ATTENDANCE was a factor ----we would have gotten in when they chose the 4

HAVING EMPTY SEATS DID NOT KEEP US OUT

LOL YEAH IT MAKES SENSE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF FANS AT GAMES LOL----

PEOPLE ON HERE SAYING MAKE IT 40K and we can expand it later LOL-----WE ALREADY HAVE A STADIUM THAT WE DON"T HAVE TO EXPAND LATER

LOL--yeah make it 40K and tell the thousands of TIGER fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS --screw you we will expand 10 years from now so you POOR people can attend

AGAIN they told BOISE to expand----our people on here think its a good idea to DECREASE the attendance at our games LOL

I can here it now --HEY BIG12 --you told BOISE to go to 50K plus---but we think its better to have 40K fans than occasionally having 45K 50K +55K + because we think its bad to have empty seats ---even though FOR YEARS WE HAVE AVERAGED MORE FANS THAN UCF--HOU--CINN----WE THINK ITS BETTER TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF FANS THAT CAN ATTEND OUR GAMES----and no we do not think we will be the LAUGHING STOCK of the NATION with thinking that its better to have LESS FANS THAN MORE FANS

I can’t believe it but I finally agree with what you said… valid points

Why thank you---I have been trying hard LOL--thanks again

(10-04-2021 05:43 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  .....

PEOPLE ON HERE SAYING MAKE IT 40K and we can expand it later LOL-----WE ALREADY HAVE A STADIUM THAT WE DON"T HAVE TO EXPAND LATER

LOL--yeah make it 40K and tell the thousands of TIGER fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS --screw you we will expand 10 years from now so you POOR people can attend

Yeah, that's not how you do it. First off, it would need to be 45K. Not 40K. We have not had a crowd bigger than 45K except for 2 or 3 games over the last decade. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. So your "we would run out of seats for the poor" theory is not correct.

Secondly you build it to be expandable, but you don't expand it as soon as you get 90% capacity for all 6 home games. You wait a couple years to make sure the increase in demand is sustainable. THEN... you go up 5K max. Then you wait for the 90% capacity threshold happens again, and follow the same plan again.

I'm sure if this plan was explained to the BigXII leadership, they would all agree it would be a very responsible path.

And in the event that we do not get to the BigXII within the next decade, those expansions don't happen, and we will be in a much more appropriately sized stadium.

Oh man just don’t fumble at Tulsa

(10-04-2021 06:13 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 05:43 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  .....

PEOPLE ON HERE SAYING MAKE IT 40K and we can expand it later LOL-----WE ALREADY HAVE A STADIUM THAT WE DON"T HAVE TO EXPAND LATER

LOL--yeah make it 40K and tell the thousands of TIGER fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS --screw you we will expand 10 years from now so you POOR people can attend

Yeah, that's not how you do it. First off, it would need to be 45K. Not 40K. We have not had a crowd bigger than 45K except for 2 or 3 games over the last decade. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. So your "we would run out of seats for the poor" theory is not correct.

Secondly you build it to be expandable, but you don't expand it as soon as you get 90% capacity for all 6 home games. You wait a couple years to make sure the increase in demand is sustainable. THEN... you go up 5K max. Then you wait for the 90% capacity threshold happens again, and follow the same plan again.

I'm sure if this plan was explained to the BigXII leadership, they would all agree it would be a very responsible path.

And in the event that we do not get to the BigXII within the next decade, those expansions don't happen, and we will be in a much more appropriately sized stadium.

So you are saying 45K then expand 50K then expand 55K then expand ---each time we expand with inflation in building costs --$$$$MILLIONS MILLIONS MILLIONS$$$$$

I say stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM but if we do build OCS --make it as big as MMS---because getting in a power 5 we will need the seats---and we DON'T ALIENATE 3/4 of our fanbase that can't afford season tickets that attend 2-3 games a year because we built a rinky dinky small stadium. I can't wait for the logic behind it when the school tells 3/4 of the fans----screw you --you either get a better paying job and purchase season tickets --or you just wait a couple years when we expand--because you the common fan wasn't important enough for us to make it big enough FOR ALL TIGER FANS TO BEGIN WITH-----If you don't like it spend your hard earned $$$elsewhere ----

If the stadium is not big enough for the average fan to attend when they have a couple extra bucks------then you haven't seen apathy yet

(10-04-2021 07:48 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 06:13 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 05:43 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  .....

PEOPLE ON HERE SAYING MAKE IT 40K and we can expand it later LOL-----WE ALREADY HAVE A STADIUM THAT WE DON"T HAVE TO EXPAND LATER

LOL--yeah make it 40K and tell the thousands of TIGER fans that CAN'T AFFORD SEASON TICKETS --screw you we will expand 10 years from now so you POOR people can attend

Yeah, that's not how you do it. First off, it would need to be 45K. Not 40K. We have not had a crowd bigger than 45K except for 2 or 3 games over the last decade. I'm sorry, but that's the truth. So your "we would run out of seats for the poor" theory is not correct.

Secondly you build it to be expandable, but you don't expand it as soon as you get 90% capacity for all 6 home games. You wait a couple years to make sure the increase in demand is sustainable. THEN... you go up 5K max. Then you wait for the 90% capacity threshold happens again, and follow the same plan again.

I'm sure if this plan was explained to the BigXII leadership, they would all agree it would be a very responsible path.

And in the event that we do not get to the BigXII within the next decade, those expansions don't happen, and we will be in a much more appropriately sized stadium.

So you are saying 45K then expand 50K then expand 55K then expand ---each time we expand with inflation in building costs --$$$$MILLIONS MILLIONS MILLIONS$$$$$

I say stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM but if we do build OCS --make it as big as MMS---because getting in a power 5 we will need the seats---and we DON'T ALIENATE 3/4 of our fanbase that can't afford season tickets that attend 2-3 games a year because we built a rinky dinky small stadium. I can't wait for the logic behind it when the school tells 3/4 of the fans----screw you --you either get a better paying job and purchase season tickets --or you just wait a couple years when we expand--because you the common fan wasn't important enough for us to make it big enough FOR ALL TIGER FANS TO BEGIN WITH-----If you don't like it spend your hard earned $$$elsewhere ----

If the stadium is not big enough for the average fan to attend when they have a couple extra bucks------then you haven't seen apathy yet

You are on a roll