Most Athletic Department Debt

[madmartigan]

On 5/27/2024 at 12:26 PM, Slapdad said:

CSU reported a $28.2M athletics deficit in 2022 and haven't had much success with their expensive FB coach hires....I'd say CSU isn't in great shape, financially speaking. And even though RSF gave the facepalm reaction to Dealwit's post, his post isn't untrue. The money put into stadiums hasn't translated to higher attendance and more money to this point. 

 

RSF facepalms a lot of posts. This means little. CSU has whiffed on coach after coach in football after buckteeth left. That compounds the debt problem. 

[RSF]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:22 AM, madmartigan said:

RSF facepalms a lot of posts. This means little. CSU has whiffed on coach after coach in football after buckteeth left. That compounds the debt problem. 

A lot of posts deserve facepalms.

 

 

This one included.

[madmartigan]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:27 AM, RSF said:

A lot of posts deserve facepalms.

 

 

This one included.

Everyone needs a hobby. 

[AztecSU]

We have some real finance wizards on the board. They should name all the schools that have defaulted on stadium debt historically. I mean, with so many stadiums, it must be common, amirite?

[MissionTrails]

On 5/27/2024 at 7:27 AM, Dealwit said:

That's what happens when you build a shinny new stadium or an extensive renovation.  Hoping you get into a power conference.

Yes, we should have followed UNM's lead and keep playing in a crumbling 60+ year old stadium and win 2 or 3 games a year. Who needs a "shinny" new stadium? 

[Slapdad]

On 5/28/2024 at 11:01 AM, AztecSU said:

We have some real finance wizards on the board. They should name all the schools that have defaulted on stadium debt historically. I mean, with so many stadiums, it must be common, amirite?

The debt gets passed along to the school (as it did with ASU), who absorbs it. In turn, tuition is raised, people bitch about the cost of college as they take out student loans and insist that they shouldn't have to pay it back and the taxpayers end up footing the bill. Yep....no consequences ever. 

 

[Slapdad]

On 5/28/2024 at 11:38 AM, MissionTrails said:

Yes, we should have followed UNM's lead and keep playing in a crumbling 60+ year old stadium and win 2 or 3 games a year. Who needs a "shinny" new stadium? 

Or you can spend $220M and win 2 or 3 games a year like CSU. The stadium isn't losing those games, it's the coach or coaches. 

[MissionTrails]

On 5/28/2024 at 9:49 AM, Slapdad said:

Or you can spend $220M and win 2 or 3 games a year like CSU. The stadium isn't losing those games, it's the coach or coaches. 

I wasn't correlating stadium spending with W-L record, just slapping back at a silly post by a Lobo fan who doesn't really have a clue on the issue.

[SDSUfan]

On 5/28/2024 at 6:55 AM, Slapdad said:

There are options between building a $220M/$310M stadium and not having one. Houston built their stadium for $128M three years earlier while Tulane and S. Alabama built theirs for about $75M three years earlier as well. Time will tell if it was worth it or not for CSU, but a lot of debt combined with athletic departments that are underperforming, financially speaking, isn't a  great combination, as former CSU AD Joe Parker can attest. 

You're correct.  SDSU had an option called Soccer City whereby a stadium would have been built that they could share with a MLS team for as little as $10 million up front investment.  Stadium would have had lower capacity ( 25 vs 35k) BUT it would have had shade, which turns out is a big deal. Now they have a $300 million dollar stadium they share with the MLS.  The debt was a choice.  So far, the stadium part is working out.  SDSU West, which is really nothing more than a land speculation deal subject to the associated vagaries of that business, not so much.

[Slapdad]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:01 PM, SDSUfan said:

You're correct.  SDSU had an option called Soccer City whereby a stadium would have been built that they could share with a MLS team for as little as $10 million up front investment.  Stadium would have had lower capacity ( 25 vs 35k) BUT it would have had shade, which turns out is a big deal. Now they have a $300 million dollar stadium they share with the MLS.  The debt was a choice.  So far, the stadium part is working out.  SDSU West, which is really nothing more than a land speculation deal subject to the associated vagaries of that business, not so much.

As a Nevada fan, believe me, I'd love to have a new stadium. But I'd much rather Nevada be as strong, fiscally speaking, as possible. I love Pack sports, but I want it to make sense. Look at the mess that Oregon State and Wazzu now find themselves in now....what a disaster. 

[AztecSU]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:01 AM, SDSUfan said:

You're correct.  SDSU had an option called Soccer City whereby a stadium would have been built that they could share with a MLS team for as little as $10 million up front investment.  Stadium would have had lower capacity ( 25 vs 35k) BUT it would have had shade, which turns out is a big deal. Now they have a $300 million dollar stadium they share with the MLS.  The debt was a choice.  So far, the stadium part is working out.  SDSU West, which is really nothing more than a land speculation deal subject to the associated vagaries of that business, not so much.

You are so goofy. Its not working out? How many entities are they already collecting rent from? Meanwhile the city has a University building them a brand new park space right next to a trolly stop in the middle of MV. And will get a bridge out of it as well. Sucker City was a scam job, and you still don't get it. lmao. 

[SDSUfan]

On 5/28/2024 at 11:25 AM, AztecSU said:

You are so goofy. Its not working out? How many entities are they already collecting rent from? Meanwhile the city has a University building them a brand new park space right next to a trolly stop in the middle of MV. And will get a bridge out of it as well. Sucker City was a scam job, and you still don't get it. lmao. 

Re-read what I posted.  I said the stadium IS working out.  SDSU West isn't, primarily because the IS NO SDSU WEST.  Going on year 4 and not a single building of any type, for any purpose has been constructed.  If you want to claim a park, built in the flood plain because it's of no use for anything else is progress and a bridge that has yet to be constructed is progress, feel free.  ( You have to pay SDSU to park at the so called public park BTW.).

Facts are facts.  There is no SDSU West.  The only thing even on the drawing board is low income housing next to the stadium and even that is being held up by the realities of the the San Diego real estate market and the cost of money. Such is the life of the real estate speculator. And thus the reason for my ambivalence about the whole enterprise.  Call me crazy but in my world public education institutions shouldn't be in that game.

[Dealwit]

On 5/28/2024 at 11:01 AM, MissionTrails said:

I wasn't correlating stadium spending with W-L record, just slapping back at a silly post by a Lobo fan who doesn't really have a clue on the issue.

Or a “silly” post like your own, because you really have a clue about debt don't you?

[MissionTrails]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:47 PM, Dealwit said:

Or a “silly” post like your own, because you really have a clue about debt don't you?

As mentioned by another poster, the debt mentioned can be compared in many ways to a home mortgage. I can't speak for CSU, but SDSU is doing just fine financially and will have no issues paying off their stadium debt. The admins already knew it would be an attractive enough venue and location to rent it out for all kinds of usage when football isn't being played. I know plenty about debt servicing, thanks for inquiring.

[MissionTrails]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:02 PM, SDSUfan said:

Re-read what I posted.  I said the stadium IS working out.  SDSU West isn't, primarily because the IS NO SDSU WEST.  Going on year 4 and not a single building of any type, for any purpose has been constructed.  If you want to claim a park, built in the flood plain because it's of no use for anything else is progress and a bridge that has yet to be constructed is progress, feel free.  ( You have to pay SDSU to park at the so called public park BTW.).

Facts are facts.  There is no SDSU West.  The only thing even on the drawing board is low income housing next to the stadium and even that is being held up by the realities of the the San Diego real estate market and the cost of money. Such is the life of the real estate speculator. And thus the reason for my ambivalence about the whole enterprise.  Call me crazy but in my world public education institutions shouldn't be in that game.

I have been to the park 7 or 8 times and have never had to pay. I haven't gone during a stadium event, so I can't speak to that. Perhaps its closed off then to non-paying automobile traffic.

Regarding the other buildings, last I heard was 10-15 years for full build-out. Rome wasn't built in a day, or something like that.

 

[AztecSU]

On 5/28/2024 at 1:53 PM, MissionTrails said:

I have been to the park 7 or 8 times and have never had to pay. I haven't gone during a stadium event, so I can't speak to that. Perhaps its closed off then to non-paying automobile traffic.

Regarding the other buildings, last I heard was 10-15 years for full build-out. Rome wasn't built in a day, or something like that.

 

He's addicted to being wrong. He thought the Chargers should get MV before he wanted Sucker City to get it. Meanwhile....https://www.sdsu.edu/news/2023/11/sdsu-mission-valley-developments-get-green-light

[Headbutt]

On 5/28/2024 at 7:55 AM, Slapdad said:

There are options between building a $220M/$310M stadium and not having one. Houston built their stadium for $128M three years earlier while Tulane and S. Alabama built theirs for about $75M three years earlier as well. Time will tell if it was worth it or not for CSU, but a lot of debt combined with athletic departments that are underperforming, financially speaking, isn't a  great combination, as former CSU AD Joe Parker can attest. 

Perhaps that was a big part of the problem.  JP was great at counting beans but couldn't market Dr. Pepper at an SEC game.  We'll see how the new guy does at "generating" revenue as opposed to whining about it.  Canvas was intended to host much more than FB.  JP leaves and all of a sudden we're gonna' have concerts.  Go figure.

BTW, I wouldn't trust an athletic department balance sheet if my life depended on it.  Those numbers are very malleable.

[Fowl]

These numbers are probably off a bit but FWIW SDSU's stadium cost $310mm and they floated a note for it in 2021 luckily at damn near the bottom of the rate cycle at just a hair over 2%.   IIRC it's non-callable long-term paper (20 or 30 years).

The school took all of the donations, naming rights money, the 'stadium excellence fund' charged to each season ticket holder, and some of the rental revenue to date and have stuck it in a separate fund to extinguish the stadium debt.  That fund is now well over $100mm and sits in T-bills earning close to 5% at the moment.  One of the reasons the fund was originally established was to help service the debt if another covid hit.  Because of lucky timing, it's now earning enough to cover the debt service.    

[Beach Bully]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:01 AM, SDSUfan said:

You're correct.  SDSU had an option called Soccer City whereby a stadium would have been built that they could share with a MLS team for as little as $10 million up front investment.  Stadium would have had lower capacity ( 25 vs 35k) BUT it would have had shade, which turns out is a big deal. Now they have a $300 million dollar stadium they share with the MLS.  The debt was a choice.  So far, the stadium part is working out.  SDSU West, which is really nothing more than a land speculation deal subject to the associated vagaries of that business, not so much.

If by working out you mean generating a profit, then yes, it’s working out.  And this is before the extra mls rent is added in for their 30 yr lease.  
 

 

[---I GREEN INFECTION I---]

On 5/24/2024 at 10:02 PM, Spaztecs said:

Daaaamn.

CSU and SDSU throwing cash around like they're a P4.

 

It’s because we have the two best stadiums in the conf without a Landlord.