For $700MM, I would imagine the interest rates would be signficantly better to a multi-billion dollar university than what you or I would pay for a mortgage for a typical house. Or what @BobPSU92 pays to finance his vanilla lattes.
Beaver Stadium Proposal:
- Thread starter PSUFTG2
- Start date
Probably.
The other question is - where would they build it? The area around the stadium is built out. The current stadium footprint, including adjacent parking, takes up approximately 110 acres. The total footprint, taking into account all parking near the stadium and not downtown SC, is about 632 acres (that includes existing building footprint).
So, if they build the new stadium somewhere else, (because the team will keep having to use current stadium), then where are they going to have enough space to accomodate all the parking? Even if it's a reduced capacity, that would still require quite a bit of usable space. The only option would be to build the new stadium right next to the current one, and only disrupt a relatively small area. The stadium itself takes up about 17 acres of space. You will need that much plus about 25% more for contractor workspace to build next to the existing stadium.
Last edited:
Gotta agree with you here. Barry was a rude, raving, foul mouthed jerk for quite a while (he may still be, but he doesn't demonstrate that behavior on this board anymore). I give him credit for cleaning up his act in that regard.
He is not anti-football, JoeBot, statue worshiper, etc. He appears to be the only trustee that understands the definition of the word F-I-D-U-C-I-A-R-Y.
He votes based upon what he believes is in the best interest of the university, its students, and its faculty. He actually takes the time to study the proposals and make a decision upon what he thinks is best for PSU. Is he always right? Certainly not, but he does his homework.
People get pi$$ed off because he asks questions such as "why are spending 4 times as much for project X which is almost identical to the same project that was done at (name your B10 school)?"
He is also the ONLY trustee to to report before and after each BOT meeting to advise us (alumni) of what is going to take place, what the proposals are about, and why he voted either yes or no. Not ONE SINGLE other BOT member communicates with the public as does Barry.
If you don't already subscribe to his newsletters, I urge you to do so. You might be amazed at what you can learn about the PSU BOT and the actions they take.
My biggest issue with Barry and Al and Lubrano (both I thought acted like a horses ***) was delaying the meeting again. Has Lubrano ever paid for his name on the Stadium? Heck has he even proved he was on the team?
Edit: I also thought the other trustee that brought up Ai had an interesting point.
Last edited:
Guessing that the rate would be lower than a 25-year conventional is a layup. So what would you "imagine" it would be?
I have no idea. But, if my experience with local developers is any indication, they are paying a bit better than the average home owner mortgage applicant. A couple of these developers are Multi-billion dollar entities.
TY.
BARRY FENCHAK – Responsible Governance. For a change.
Folks can sign up for the newsletter here:
Barry Fenchak For Penn State Trustee (list-manage.com)
I went into some detail on the Beaver Stadium proposal in a communication prior to the vote - but I will be providing a summary of what actually went down ASAP (been a hectic time since the proposal went down - as one might imagine - but will get it out ASAP)
I don't know why people get hung up on the architect's renderings. Most times they're simply PR. There's a good chance the finished product won't look anything like that. Remember this one???
Barry, maybe I missed it because I didn't listen to the audio... but with the news that schools will be beginning to pay players (will it happen this year? maybe not, but its coming) to the tune of ~$20m a year, was there any discussion on how that will impact cash flow? I saw Brandon's LinkedIn post where somehow spending $700m results in a surplus, but spending $200m results in a deficit (yea, he's a math guy?? gimme a break)... but curious, if the $20m a year we gotta now create was a part of it too?
Shark:
I just made a new post linking in a conversation that gets into a LOT of those things.... take a listen when you have some time.
Specifically as to the "pay for players" bit:
Yes, there was a "best guess" figure put in there for what that would be. How accurate that will be - who knows? (Seriously, no one really knows, especially as we move further along. I think the estimates used were probably a bit optimistic - but time will tell. Its really tough to project that very "unknown" aspect out 30 years).
The bigger issues (not that "pay for play" isn't very impactful) were what was NOT in there..... I've probably spent 100 hours or more doing analysis over the last couple weeks - and clearly two gigantic red flags that stand out way more than anything else:
The projections used to get to "break-even" assume that:
1) ICA takes on no other capital project debt for the next 30 years. Think about that for a moment (not including this project, we have taken on, IIRC, about $100 million in new ICA debt in the last year alone) - and the impact there would be if we used reality numbers instead.
2) And the - by far - biggest impact: Over the last 10 years ICA Operating Costs have increased by 6.5% per year - very consistently. Those are for all those things that we do every year (everything from team travel, to scholarship costs, to administration and overhead salaries, etc. Many of them that are near certainties to increase at fairly steep rates).
The "projections" used to make the renovation sound like a fiscal break-even were based on those costs rising by only 2.5% per year - with no explanation for how that was going to happen (I do not know if whomever put those projections together even knows what our historical operating costs have been? Or did they just find the number that "worked" to be able to show the project as fiscally viable? IDK).
The impact of that? Rather than break even - even if every other projection was spot on - would be that rather than break even, ICA would be Billions (with a B) in the hole at the end of those 30 years. Something is going to have to give well before then, obviously.
Anyway, more detail on some of that stuff in the clip posted above.
I just made a new post linking in a conversation that gets into a LOT of those things.... take a listen when you have some time.
Specifically as to the "pay for players" bit:
Yes, there was a "best guess" figure put in there for what that would be. How accurate that will be - who knows? (Seriously, no one really knows, especially as we move further along. I think the estimates used were probably a bit optimistic - but time will tell. Its really tough to project that very "unknown" aspect out 30 years).
The bigger issues (not that "pay for play" isn't very impactful) were what was NOT in there..... I've probably spent 100 hours or more doing analysis over the last couple weeks - and clearly two gigantic red flags that stand out way more than anything else:
The projections used to get to "break-even" assume that:
1) ICA takes on no other capital project debt for the next 30 years. Think about that for a moment (not including this project, we have taken on, IIRC, about $100 million in new ICA debt in the last year alone) - and the impact there would be if we used reality numbers instead.
2) And the - by far - biggest impact: Over the last 10 years ICA Operating Costs have increased by 6.5% per year - very consistently. Those are for all those things that we do every year (everything from team travel, to scholarship costs, to administration and overhead salaries, etc. Many of them that are near certainties to increase at fairly steep rates).
The "projections" used to make the renovation sound like a fiscal break-even were based on those costs rising by only 2.5% per year - with no explanation for how that was going to happen (I do not know if whomever put those projections together even knows what our historical operating costs have been? Or did they just find the number that "worked" to be able to show the project as fiscally viable? IDK).
The impact of that? Rather than break even - even if every other projection was spot on - would be that rather than break even, ICA would be Billions (with a B) in the hole at the end of those 30 years. Something is going to have to give well before then, obviously.
Anyway, more detail on some of that stuff in the clip posted above.
I know - but people do like to b*tch. And this helps them.I don't know why people get hung up on the architect's renderings. Most times they're simply PR. There's a good chance the finished product won't look anything like that. Remember this one???
Will do, I just am trying not to start the weekend furious, so might do so on Tuesday instead.
At some point enough is just that, enough. They, psu, have milked this cow enough. As much as I am a fervent Nittany Lion fan the last proverbial straw has been added to my back. I donated long before I would receive tickets, that finally happened when the south end zone was completed. But now, retired and near seventy, there are more things I would like to see and do. I now live in very southern Arizona. So cross country trips back to Mecca of Beaver Stadium are not quite as appealing as they use to be. Upward and onward, for you all but the appeal of being PSU 's bank just ain't what it use to be. Take care. And I'll be watching. In the comfort of my home. Best wishes to you all.
Makes perfect sense.
I don’t understand why anyone would contribute donations to a professional sports enterprise?
It will be a cold day in hell before I send a check to the Phillies to pay the cost of them hiring a backup catcher. Win some games, give me entertainment,I might buy a ticket and some hot dogs.
I stumbled upon this subreddit this morning:
Then I had pictures in my mind of the site of Beaver Stadium in 1855, today, and 2055. I figure 1855 and 2055 will look the same.
Then I had pictures in my mind of the site of Beaver Stadium in 1855, today, and 2055. I figure 1855 and 2055 will look the same.
