- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,374
- Reaction Score
- 16,572
I have read the original legislation on the Public Authority that initiated the financing of Rentschler Stadium (as have a few others on this board ... Excalibur). And, I have a background that understands how Public Authority financing happens & a brother who is a Staff Attorney on the legislative committee that oversees Public Authorities in New York state.
Rentschler's expansion is not dependant on Donations from Alumni, friends and state business. As Robert Moses proved throughout the last centure, Public Authorities are powerful entities. Rentschler, I believe, has far exceeded the Demand & Revenue projections in the original legislation through the Connecticut assembly/senate. Interest rates are remarkably, historically low; relative to when the deal was originally done. So ... you have a Cash Flow (after Debt Service) far higher for those bonds than originally floated. The Credit of those Bonds, to my understanding, are outside those of the State of CT. (might be rated higher) There is plenty of capacity to re-cast the original bond offering & do the expansion.
It does not effect the hard times faced internally in the State budget.
This is a far better structure than we saw at Rutgers.
So ... I believe that we should have expanded in the great Capital raising in the last cycle. I believe that this was a huge mistake by Jeff Hathaway and others to not be in that market then. (both Tom Jurich & Tim Pernetti of Rutgers found their way to taking advantage of a good money raising market).
We could do this today. The Obvious Problem is Public Perception. You can say that we don't have the demand needed to have gone to 55,000. I would respond that the idea that we would draw 40,000 to the Rent in 2000 was a far more speculative feasibility study.
Attack at will.
Rentschler's expansion is not dependant on Donations from Alumni, friends and state business. As Robert Moses proved throughout the last centure, Public Authorities are powerful entities. Rentschler, I believe, has far exceeded the Demand & Revenue projections in the original legislation through the Connecticut assembly/senate. Interest rates are remarkably, historically low; relative to when the deal was originally done. So ... you have a Cash Flow (after Debt Service) far higher for those bonds than originally floated. The Credit of those Bonds, to my understanding, are outside those of the State of CT. (might be rated higher) There is plenty of capacity to re-cast the original bond offering & do the expansion.
It does not effect the hard times faced internally in the State budget.
This is a far better structure than we saw at Rutgers.
So ... I believe that we should have expanded in the great Capital raising in the last cycle. I believe that this was a huge mistake by Jeff Hathaway and others to not be in that market then. (both Tom Jurich & Tim Pernetti of Rutgers found their way to taking advantage of a good money raising market).
We could do this today. The Obvious Problem is Public Perception. You can say that we don't have the demand needed to have gone to 55,000. I would respond that the idea that we would draw 40,000 to the Rent in 2000 was a far more speculative feasibility study.
Attack at will.