http://www.contracostatimes.com/cal-bears/ci_20438399/cals-stadium-financing-faces-challenge-meet-lofty-goals


Might be a booth. Don't see an earlier thread.

Much better than the WSJ article.


Still not very good for Cal.





Too bad the PR machine is running at full capacity just to build a FAQ page.

Thanks for the link. I'm curious to know how/why we some idea that we'd be able to raise money better than UT and Michigan? Is five times realistic? It paints a very interesting picture - if we dumped JT (and I'm not saying we necessarily have to do that) and paid his buyout and then brought in a big dollar coach, sure we end up spending a bit more money in the short term. But if the new coach can win big and get us to a BCS game every couple of years, the long run benefit might be too much to pass up given how much fund raising we need to do and the impact that the wins and losses would have on the fund raising.

easdog1;739092 said:

---

Thanks for the link. I'm curious to know how/why we some idea that we'd be able to raise money better than UT and Michigan? Is five times realistic? It paints a very interesting picture - if we dumped JT (and I'm not saying we necessarily have to do that) and paid his buyout and then brought in a big dollar coach, sure we end up spending a bit more money in the short term. But if the new coach can win big and get us to a BCS game every couple of years, the long run benefit might be too much to pass up given how much fund raising we need to do and the impact that the wins and losses would have on the fund raising.

---

It's becoming painfully obvious that the good will Tedford has built up has to be replaced by wins...lots of them...and soon.

is that if Cal is to keep playing D1 football the stadium needed to be fixed. These same folks who write this crap would have a field day if the stadium wasn't fixed and an earth quake hit and killed folks attending a game or using the facilities. It's not like Cal built some football palace. They tastefully updated and made safer a building that needed it. So far, Cal has done a great job getting this done and moving forward with plans to pay this off. Until the day comes (if it ever does) where the money becomes an issue I think folks need to back off and give thanks to those that made a public building a safer place.

easdog1;739092 said:

---

Thanks for the link. I'm curious to know how/why we some idea that we'd be able to raise money better than UT and Michigan? Is five times realistic? It paints a very interesting picture - (1)if we dumped JT (and I'm not saying we necessarily have to do that) and paid his buyout and then brought in a big dollar coach, sure we end up spending a bit more money in the short term. (2) But if the new coach can win big and get us to a BCS game every couple of years, the long run benefit might be too much to pass up given how much fund raising we need to do and the impact that the wins and losses would have on the fund raising.

---

The first hypothetical will cost money for certain.


The second hypothical is very speculative and MIGHT bring in more cash than Cal would receive if Cal were to keep JT.

I cannot support that choice until JT is given the chance to show what he can (or cannot) do now that the new SAHPC is a reality.

easdog1;739092 said:

---

Thanks for the link. I'm curious to know how/why we some idea that we'd be able to raise money better than UT and Michigan? Is five times realistic? It paints a very interesting picture - if we dumped JT (and I'm not saying we necessarily have to do that) and paid his buyout and then brought in a big dollar coach, sure we end up spending a bit more money in the short term. But if the new coach can win big and get us to a BCS game every couple of years, the long run benefit might be too much to pass up given how much fund raising we need to do and the impact that the wins and losses would have on the fund raising.

---

"Success and failure are the same impostor." --Rudyard Kipling.

Always be careful what you wish for.

:facepalm

easdog1;739092 said:

---

Thanks for the link. I'm curious to know how/why we some idea that we'd be able to raise money better than UT and Michigan? Is five times realistic? It paints a very interesting picture - if we dumped JT (and I'm not saying we necessarily have to do that) and paid his buyout and then brought in a big dollar coach, sure we end up spending a bit more money in the short term. But if the new coach can win big and get us to a BCS game every couple of years, the long run benefit might be too much to pass up given how much fund raising we need to do and the impact that the wins and losses would have on the fund raising.

---

Im sorry but this is ridiculous. Any ideas about which new coach would accomplish this?? WE HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A BCS GAME, and only a few programs nationwide can expect to get to such a game "every few years" - BAMA, FLA, LSU, ND, OSU, SC, TEX, OU, ORE? Mich?, VT?, WISC? - programs with much more tradition / support than ours. Yes, JT needs to win, but that means winning 8-10 games a year and being competitive against big conferences foes (Stanford, USC, whoever else is on top any given year) - not going to BCS games every other year. That will be enough to get attendance up to at least near capacity....if he can't do that, then yes, maybe new blood is needed to take next step.

easdog1;739092 said:

---

Thanks for the link. I'm curious to know how/why we some idea that we'd be able to raise money better than UT and Michigan? Is five times realistic? It paints a very interesting picture - if we dumped JT (and I'm not saying we necessarily have to do that) and paid his buyout and then brought in a big dollar coach, sure we end up spending a bit more money in the short term. But if the new coach can win big and get us to a BCS game every couple of years, the long run benefit might be too much to pass up given how much fund raising we need to do and the impact that the wins and losses would have on the fund raising.

---

We're already deep in the hole, we just opened our new facilities, so your great idea is to pay millions of more dollars we don't have to buy out JT in the hopes that "shiny new coach" will take a team that hasn't been to the Rose Bowl since the 50s to a BCS game "every couple years?"

Which will translate into millions and millions of extra dollars we wouldn't otherwise get with the current coach??

Sending Sandy to Vegas and having her bet $20 million on black at the roulette table has a higher probability of financial success. Much higher.

I've decided not to give a sh*t about how well their plan will work, for now.

My concerns are as follows; Spring game, Maynard/Bridgford development, receiver depth, GREAT D-line. . . . . . . . . . . years . . . . . . .. years . . . . . . . . . . .. years . . . . . . . . . . .years . . . . . . . .2038 hey, hows that stadium thing going?

socaliganbear;739138 said:

---

decided ... . ... '38 ...

---

be sure and get back to us on how that works out for y'all

bluebeargold;739127 said:

---

Im sorry but this is ridiculous. Any ideas about which new coach would accomplish this?? WE HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A BCS GAME, and only a few programs nationwide can expect to get to such a game "every few years" - BAMA, FLA, LSU, ND, OSU, SC, TEX, OU, ORE? Mich?, VT?, WISC? - programs with much more tradition / support than ours. Yes, JT needs to win, but that means winning 8-10 games a year and being competitive against big conferences foes (Stanford, USC, whoever else is on top any given year) - not going to BCS games every other year. That will be enough to get attendance up to at least near capacity....if he can't do that, then yes, maybe new blood is needed to take next step.

---

Why can't we be like Wisconsin? Or Stanford for that matter? Isn't that the goal? I don't understand why that's so unreasonable.

Did Wisconsin have tradition before Barry Alvarez built it in the 90s? And he, btw, was only 118-73-4 in his tenure, although the Badgers won the Big 10 three times. Their last big success was in the 50s and early 60s. Not exactly tradition. VTech, same thing. They'd been to six bowls in their first 100 years. Beamer took over in 1987 and turned it around. Previous tradition be damned.

BeachyBear;739131 said:

---

We're already deep in the hole, we just opened our new facilities, so your great idea is to pay millions of more dollars we don't have to buy out JT in the hopes that "shiny new coach" will take a team that hasn't been to the Rose Bowl since the 50s to a BCS game "every couple years?"

Which will translate into millions and millions of extra dollars we wouldn't otherwise get with the current coach??

Sending Sandy to Vegas and having her bet $20 million on black at the roulette table has a higher probability of financial success. Much higher.

---

for(int i = 0; i < INT_MAX; i++) {
cout << "This";
}

82gradDLSdad;739094 said:

---

is that if Cal is to keep playing D1 football the stadium needed to be fixed. These same folks who write this crap would have a field day if the stadium wasn't fixed and an earth quake hit and killed folks attending a game or using the facilities. It's not like Cal built some football palace. They tastefully updated and made safer a building that needed it. So far, Cal has done a great job getting this done and moving forward with plans to pay this off. Until the day comes (if it ever does) where the money becomes an issue I think folks need to back off and give thanks to those that made a public building a safer place.

---

That's what pisses me off the most.

Sonofafurd;739258 said:

---

for(int i = 0; i < INT_MAX; i++) {
cout << "This";
}

---

what's the value of INT_MAX?

edit: I'm not a c guy; didn't realize that was a constant

82gradDLSdad;739094 said:

---

If Cal is to keep playing D1 football the stadium needed to be fixed.

---

Not true. Alternatives included building on another site with fewer seismic issues, or playing at an existing venue.

82gradDLSdad;739094 said:

---

It's not like Cal built some football palace.

---

Not true. We are paying far more than others are paying for their stadium renovations, and ours only includes the west side.

82gradDLSdad;739094 said:

---

They tastefully updated and made safer a building that needed it.

---

Athletics goes on and on about preserving the historic character of the stadium, and then they go and put in that giant press box that is completely out of character.

82gradDLSdad;739094 said:

---

So far, Cal has done a great job getting this done and moving forward with plans to pay this off.

---

So far the financing has been a disaster. In January 2010 it was announced that 1,700 ESP seats had been sold. By June 30, 2011 that number (if it was real to begin with) had shrunk to 1,421. More than two years after hitting 1,700, the latest figures show 1,796 ESP seats have been sold. You can bet that the remaining seats are less-desirable either by price or location, so they may well be much more difficult to sell.

The original plan that ESP would be a binding commitment was a failure, so now subscribers can choose to walk away at any time. The result is that most of the ESP money is soft, and could easily vanish due to the economy or disenchantment due to scandal or poor on-field performance.

BAMSPhD;739671 said:

---

Not true. Alternatives included building on another site with fewer seismic issues, or playing at an existing venue.


Not true. We are paying far more than others are paying for their stadium renovations, and ours only includes the west side.


Athletics goes on and on about preserving the historic character of the stadium, and then they go and put in that giant press box that is completely out of character.
.

---

Dr. Barky, I appreciate protecting students from debt/fees incurred from sports. I actually commend you for taking a stand for an important issue.

However, you have sadly interjected personal opinion and beliefs in making your case - as highlighted in your posts. Likewise, you have neglected to mention the burden of D1 sports lie with non-revenue sports/title IX programs. At the same time, you have distorted facts to make your case. This combination results in the negative backlash you have experienced. You come off as negligent, malicious, and petty.

When will the east side of the stadium be renovated? Would be kind of embarrassing to be indefinitely stuck with half a renovated stadium.

GB54;739093 said:

---

It's becoming painfully obvious that the good will Tedford has built up has to be replaced by wins...lots of them...and soon.

---

The financing of the re-do of the stadium was predicated on Tedford winning lots of games, so that the administration could charge more per ticket per home game, plus what essentially seat licenses over a couple of decades. I don't see that happening, given the track record of the past five years for the football team. The 2012 season is a pivotal one for the Bears, and this more than just what happens on the renovated football field.

HaasBear04;739708 said:

---

When will the east side of the stadium be renovated? Would be kind of embarrassing to be indefinitely stuck with half a renovated stadium.

---

The short answer is not in your life time.

BAMSPhD;739671 said:

---

Not true. Alternatives included building on another site with fewer seismic issues, or playing at an existing venue.

---

The location is a huge issue. There is no suitable location on UC owned land. No one can seriously believe that Edwards is close to big enough. Sites along the bay (ie Golden Gate Fields) would have huge expenses due to soil quality - it's expensive to build on fill - so that's a ~$600 million dollar project not a ~$300 million dollar one.

Candlestick will be gone in 5 years. There's a really good chance the Coliseum will be gone soon too. Yes the CMS rebuild is costing $15 million per in bond payments, but consider the lost revenue due to an off campus location. There will be rent to pay and less tickets sold. Student attendance will be severely stunted, which in turn cuts off thousands of potential future donors/customers who never develop a relationship with Cal football.

UCLA and USC have off campus stadiums, sure. But there is no one around to give Cal a sweetheart deal on a stadium lease. If the Raiders leave the Coli (and who expects them to stay long term?), that land becomes much more valuable for some other use. Sure Oakland will be desperate for tenants to help pay their stadium debt.... but that means they will need a significant cut of our revenue and maintaining an old stadium is not free either. It would be more likely that the city/county grant a private developer the land and right to build something there in exchange for paying off the remaining coli debt.

So that leaves AT&T park. Is it really that inconceivable that playing at ATT would cost Cal Athletics $10-15 million per year due to lost rev and rent? Plus AT&T would mean that fans lose an important connection to their campus. Is a similarly negative $15 million per year bond payment that bad considering the alternative?

So when the no build alternative will also cost Cal tons of money in the long term, what is Cal supposed to do? Obviously, Barsky wants football dropped and believes the players have no place on campus. But of course football is required for P12 membership, and is the difference between the $2 million/year TV contract the MWC gets and $25-30 million that P12 will now receive. I'm not saying the TV money gives football/the AD a carte blanche to spend like lottery winners. I certainly hope the AD finds ways to divert some TV revenue into their endowment fund for the future.

BAMSPhD;739671 said:

---

Not true. Alternatives included building on another site with fewer seismic issues, or playing at an existing venue.


Not true. We are paying far more than others are paying for their stadium renovations, and ours only includes the west side.


Athletics goes on and on about preserving the historic character of the stadium, and then they go and put in that giant press box that is completely out of character.


So far the financing has been a disaster. In January 2010 it was announced that 1,700 ESP seats had been sold. By June 30, 2011 that number (if it was real to begin with) had shrunk to 1,421. More than two years after hitting 1,700, the latest figures show 1,796 ESP seats have been sold. You can bet that the remaining seats are less-desirable either by price or location, so they may well be much more difficult to sell.

The original plan that ESP would be a binding commitment was a failure, so now subscribers can choose to walk away at any time. The result is that most of the ESP money is soft, and could easily vanish due to the economy or disenchantment due to scandal or poor on-field performance.

---

Cal has played college football at the highest levels at beautiful Memorial Stadium since the 1920s and combined this with academics at the highest level but your solutions are to build somewhere off campus or go play at someone else's field? That's wonderful. Here is my solution: there are a thousand colleges that don't spend money on football. Many of them deal with academics at the highest levels. Why don't you go teach at one of them? Why don't the hill people, who bought a home near a large college football stadium, move to a quieter location? I will never understand folks who choose to live and work at a place that has certain features and then spend a large amount of their time complaining and working against these features. Sounds pretty stupid to me.

BAMSPhD;739671 said:

---

Not true. Alternatives included building on another site with fewer seismic issues, or playing at an existing venue.


Not true. We are paying far more than others are paying for their stadium renovations, and ours only includes the west side.


Athletics goes on and on about preserving the historic character of the stadium, and then they go and put in that giant press box that is completely out of character.


So far the financing has been a disaster. In January 2010 it was announced that 1,700 ESP seats had been sold. By June 30, 2011 that number (if it was real to begin with) had shrunk to 1,421. More than two years after hitting 1,700, the latest figures show 1,796 ESP seats have been sold. You can bet that the remaining seats are less-desirable either by price or location, so they may well be much more difficult to sell.

The original plan that ESP would be a binding commitment was a failure, so now subscribers can choose to walk away at any time. The result is that most of the ESP money is soft, and could easily vanish due to the economy or disenchantment due to scandal or poor on-field performance.

---

The stadium is essentially built, the money is spent. Cal just spent upward of $400 million on these facilities, so your agenda on sports isn't going to happen. The largest donors to Cal academics were all at the Simpson Center gala last night (other than the Haas family, who had a conflict). The selection committee for the next Chancellor is dedicated to picking a pro-sports Chancellor because of the dire need for donor funding on the academic side. Besides an utter lack of understanding of public financing and fund accounting concepts, the Barsky articles and talking points are based on inaccurate factual statements. Even your post has misstatements. You say that the binding commitment was a failure, and changed due to lack of demand. That is utter bullshit you just made up. in fact the commitment was made non-binding before ESP was marketed due to concerns expressed by UC legal that a binding commitment made an ESP purchase a security that was subject to all sorts time-consuming SEC disclosures and costs (a prospectus would have had been prepared) that would blow the needed time table. Everyone in finance (including Haas faculty) shakes their heads, and keeps asking the administration what they are going to do about this constant barrage of misinformation, but I suspect the administration has you guys out there to show what they have deal with. I suggest you read the tea leaves better and listen to what Wilton tells you. Its time to move on.

BAMSPhD;739671 said:

---

So far the financing has been a disaster. In January 2010 it was announced that 1,700 ESP seats had been sold. By June 30, 2011 that number (if it was real to begin with) had shrunk to 1,421. More than two years after hitting 1,700, the latest figures show 1,796 ESP seats have been sold. You can bet that the remaining seats are less-desirable either by price or location, so they may well be much more difficult to sell.

The original plan that ESP would be a binding commitment was a failure, so now subscribers can choose to walk away at any time. The result is that most of the ESP money is soft, and could easily vanish due to the economy or disenchantment due to scandal or poor on-field performance.

---

You don't have to bet -- you can go to the ATO website and see exactly which ESP seats are sold and which are unsold.

Barsky is right though that the ESP picture is not quite as rosy as Cal is saying. By their own numbers the ATO says they have $144 million in commitments vs. $309 million in "inventory value". That sounds really good, since they're almost halfway to realizing the 30-year value of the ESP seats. However, only $30 million has actually been received, mostly from people going year-to-year, and we know that some of those people will decide not to renew those ESP seats. We also know that at kickoff on September 1st some of that inventory value will disappear, so ESP sales over the next four months will be critical to keeping fundraising on target.

MolecularBear007;739674 said:

---

However, you have sadly interjected personal opinion and beliefs in making your case - as highlighted in your posts. Likewise, you have neglected to mention the burden of D1 sports lie with non-revenue sports/title IX programs. At the same time, you have distorted facts to make your case. This combination results in the negative backlash you have experienced. You come off as negligent, malicious, and petty.

---

Non-revenue sports aren't the "burden", they're the whole point of college athletics.

BAMSPhD;739671 said:

---

[B]Not true. Alternatives included building on another site with fewer seismic issues, or playing at an existing venue.

Try to find a site big enough in Berkeley or Oakland. The only 2 that were floated do not work: Oakland Army base has toxic soil problems; and GG Fields is an environmental battle that would take years to sort out with no clear outcome. Also they are still within a few miles of the Hayward fault and possibly subject to liquifaction in the event of a big quake.
But heck why bother with facts.

Not true. We are paying far more than others are paying for their stadium renovations, and ours only includes the west side.
1. Cal's expense includes the SAHPC (which are not included in the UW or Mich. construction).
2. The other comparable constructions are not comparable in location (Wisc. or Mich.) or in the nature of the infrastructure needed to deal with seismic issues of any major building in the Bay Area..


Athletics goes on and on about preserving the historic character of the stadium, and then they go and put in that giant press box that is completely out of character.
Take a look at pictures of Memorial Stadium in the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's.
There was a press box on top of Memorial Stadium for 40 years; or doesn't that count.



The original plan that ESP would be a binding commitment was a failure, so now subscribers can choose to walk away at any time. The result is that most of the ESP money is soft, and could easily vanish due to the economy or disenchantment due to scandal or poor on-field performance.

---

You may have noticed that California has been in a major recession for the past 4 years. When that is alleviated, you can reasonably expect an INCREASE in sales not a decrease. What kind of poor performance or scandal do you foresee that would re decrease the ticket sales. Cal's current record is basically mediocre by the fans own criticisms. So it they are willing to buy tickets under these conditions why would those purchases go down.