Rentschler Stadium expansion | The Boneyard

Rentschler Stadium expansion

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 

RS9999X

There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,628
Reaction Score
562
No attack. I think an expansion to 55,000 would be accompanied by building season tickets into the student fees like Miami. Set up properly unused student tickets would be made available for non-profits to use via an online site.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
2,045
Reaction Score
1,882
i think the difficulty may lie in that this isn't really a UConn facility, it's a state facility. who would have the ultimate authority to give the go ahead on development? it seems to me whoever it is should care about more than just football, which could help us. the cost of another 15k seats wouldn't just be spread over 6-7 home games, but also concerts, soccer games and anything else they can come up with to bring in more than 40k people. if whoever manages this facility is only thinking about football they're being narrowminded

i'm sure if we were to ever get a B1G invite, the announcement of a stadium expansion will be in the same article. it'd be easier to pay for the 15k seats when you have games against PSU, OSU, MI to assure a few sellouts.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,511
Reaction Score
206,255
So are you saying that as part of a refi of existing debt we expand, with the reduced carrying cost of the existing debt serving to partially offset the expansion?

Agree that this makes more sense if you think of it more broadly than just a football issue. Remember that the construction itself generates Connecticut jobs at a time when they are needed.

The devil is in the details, of course, but this bucking of the conventional wisdom that you can't expand the Rent in a down economy is worth thinking about. Because this isn't a "UConn" project, it doesn't need to stand in line behind the current athletics building projects.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,374
Reaction Score
16,572
First ... we (Rentschler Public Authority = WE) refinance whenever we are able. With today's interest rates, most Universities/Bridges/Municipalities would have clearly refinanced ... maybe several times in the last decade.

UConn is a lessee. That's all: a lessee with a highly advantaged rental agreement. Saying it is a "STATE" facility is not entirely true. A Public Authority, knowing NYS, has a board & a mission. Subject to State oversight. But, it has a balance sheet & a structure outside the State budget. So if (to PULL NUMBERS FROM THE SKY but an educated guess), the original $91m was financed on 1.15 Debt Service Coverage Ratio (on projected attendance & revenue sources in year 2000); my premise is that the Revenue clearly far exceeded what would have been a conservative projection. And your Debt is probably at an interest rate/total debt payments of 60% or less of what was originally paid.

I bet we are at a DSCR of near 2.00x today. Meaning we can easily raise more money. (and should have - in my opinion)

Student Tickets? Other ways of filling the Rent? Frankly, I have NEVER been impressed with the marketing done by our Third Party outside firm NOR UConn's Ticket office. It is very unimpressive. I'd say we have the ability to expand the attendance: sure ... I believe that.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
4,923
Reaction Score
19,061
Pudge is correct. Unfortunately, UConn is in the midst of a big athletic upgrade: basketball practice facility, potential move to Hockey East, investment into Olympic sports, so the optics would not be good right now.

That said, I believe in if you build it, they will come. We could easily sell 50k seats to the Michigan and Tennessee games and season ticket demand would be high during those seasons. Plus, if you expand the Rent, the powers to be at UConn would have to get off their buts and market football to sell more seats.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
4,739
Reaction Score
18,177
October 4, 2011
2011-R-0343
NAMING RIGHTS FOR RENTSCHLER FIELD
By: Terrance Adams, Legislative Analyst II
You asked if there were any restrictions on the state's ability to sell naming rights for Rentschler Field.
SUMMARY
The state, acting through the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), secretary, controls the stadium's naming rights but (1) cannot sell them until the summer of 2018 and (2) must meet several conditions before selling them.
The state acquired the Rentschler Field site through a donation by United Technologies Corporation (UTC). Under statute and the terms of the donation agreement, the stadium must be named RentschlerField until the summer of 2018, and any proposed name after that must include the phrase “atRentschler Field.” UTC also has the right of first refusal for purchasing naming rights and the ability to reject a proposed name for the facility.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,782
Reaction Score
15,762
The difference, in your argument that 40K in 2000 was speculative, is that in 2000 we were markedly upgrading the product on the field to D1 football, from the previous irrelevant 1AA crap we played. Now, short of a major conference jump, there's no increase in the product on the field that would allow for any reasonable expectation that those extra 15K seats are going to be sold. You all can banter all you want about a B1G invite, but it's not happening. Putting in 15K new seats is not gong to suddenly draw 15K more people to the same OOC games against Buffalo and Ohio, combined with a weakened Big East. In fact, it's more appealing to other conferences to see a stadium at 100% capacity all season, a demand for more tickets, and the ability to expand if necessary, than it is to see 41,000 people in 55,000 seats. If for no other reason, it creates the perception that the program is in demand, that everyone loves it, tickets are gone like hot cakes, and that it's something everyone else should see. Smart business is to keep supply just behind demand, not increase supply when there isn't the demand. Currently, short of the Michigan game and maybe Tennessee, there's not a single game on our schedule I see us selling 55K tickets to. And "marketing more" is not going to accomplish that. When you have to market a program so much just to get a sellout, it reeks of desperation and that tickets are easy to come by. You won't see any big time football program marketing their tickets like crazy, it's because they don't have to. When you don't have to market to sellout, you're a big program. When you're marketing like hell just to make it up to a sellout, likely accomplished through day of game walk up sales, you're akin to a minor league baseball team.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
22,836
Reaction Score
9,462
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.

Let's see how ticket sales go this year and how the year turns out. I have no doubt, that completing the expansion phase of Rentschler field to full original design capacity, is a project that will soon bubble up to the top of the list as other athletic department projects move along their tracks, and ticket sales and winning games, is really the only way to get the ball rolling now, because:

I agree whole heartedly that the only issue we've got right now is a public perception problem, and that the marketing of the football program essentially through 2011, was pathetic, and even still, we did quite well with football revenue in the past 9 years since the stadium was built, and that the most ideal time to move on the stadium expansion so far to date, came and went with Hathaway having his head buried in the sand.

We've had a very nice spring when it comes to interest in the football program, we'll see how it translates to fall.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
2,045
Reaction Score
1,882
http://www.cga.ct.gov/apa/pdf2011/Rent_00181_08.pdf

Pudge, i've had a hard time trying to find any mention of their debt expense. i found an audit of their finances from a few years ago and i couldn't find any mention of interest expense listed on the income statement, or any mention of long term debt on their balance sheet. does the OPM issue it's own debt, or does it get funneled through another agency? i don't know how this got paid for, but i can't find mention of their bonds. you said you assume they started at 1.15 debt coverage on conservative revenue estimates that we've beaten, but in reality our debt coverage was probably higher than that to start. a 1.15 is pretty low for a speculative development project like this, although i've seen worse deals get pushed. if that's the case and we're blowing away our revenue estimates we may be in good position to expand. really i think the problem is that its' run by the OPM which handles about a hundred other things so i doubt expansion is even on their radar, much less list of things to do.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,782
Reaction Score
15,762
Let's see how ticket sales go this year and how the year turns out. I have no doubt, that completing the expansion phase of Rentschler field to full original design capacity, is a project that will soon bubble up to the top of the list as other athletic department projects move along their tracks, and ticket sales and winning games, is really the only way to get the ball rolling now, because:

I agree whole heartedly that the only issue we've got right now is a public perception problem, and that the marketing of the football program essentially through 2011, was pathetic, and even still, we did quite well with football revenue in the past 9 years since the stadium was built, and that the most ideal time to move on the stadium expansion so far to date, came and went with Hathaway having his head buried in the sand.

We've had a very nice spring when it comes to interest in the football program, we'll see how it translates to fall.

This is the single most important factor to deciding whether or not an expansion becomes necessary down the road. Sure, marketing could be better, but as I said above, you don't market your way to sellouts, you win your way to sellouts, and more importantly, you win your way to becoming a top level program, not by commercials and billboards. Winning is leaps and bounds the best form of marketing that exists in sports.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
2,797
Reaction Score
4,910
The difference, in your argument that 40K in 2000 was speculative, is that in 2000 we were markedly upgrading the product on the field to D1 football, from the previous irrelevant 1AA crap we played. Now, short of a major conference jump, there's no increase in the product on the field that would allow for any reasonable expectation that those extra 15K seats are going to be sold. You all can banter all you want about a B1G invite, but it's not happening. Putting in 15K new seats is not gong to suddenly draw 15K more people to the same OOC games against Buffalo and Ohio, combined with a weakened Big East. In fact, it's more appealing to other conferences to see a stadium at 100% capacity all season, a demand for more tickets, and the ability to expand if necessary, than it is to see 41,000 people in 55,000 seats. If for no other reason, it creates the perception that the program is in demand, that everyone loves it, tickets are gone like hot cakes, and that it's something everyone else should see. Smart business is to keep supply just behind demand, not increase supply when there isn't the demand. Currently, short of the Michigan game and maybe Tennessee, there's not a single game on our schedule I see us selling 55K tickets to. And "marketing more" is not going to accomplish that. When you have to market a program so much just to get a sellout, it reeks of desperation and that tickets are easy to come by. You won't see any big time football program marketing their tickets like crazy, it's because they don't have to. When you don't have to market to sellout, you're a big program. When you're marketing like hell just to make it up to a sellout, likely accomplished through day of game walk up sales, you're akin to a minor league baseball team.


I don't disagree with your point, but the problem is that if we stay at 40K, we resign ourselves to the new 1-AA (big east, cusa, maybe acc, etc.). No one will seriously consider us as a FB add to their mega-conference and no one will come here to play. It's a catch-22, but staying put is, in essence, a signal to the power conferences, both in terms of expansion and of scheduling OOC games here.

Moreover, IMO, your argument rests on past actions. UConn is developing a fanbase, and it will take time to make it equivalent to a UNC, UVa, even TCU - where 50+K is expected, and more is hoped for. If rabid fans were the key, ECU would be in. We grew up w/UConn being a punching bag for 1-AA; my kids are growing up watching us compete and thrive at 1A level. They go because they love the experience (and their dad drags them), but they are not going to stop going b/c someone keeps looking backwards and thinks Pitt or Cuse is a better team than any of the BE adds (less Memphis, and that is temporary).

I don't see the state having the appetite to spend millions to add 15 K seats for 7-8 saturdays a year, but if I were the Prez or AD of UConn, I would have this on the agenda so we can strike as soon as the BB facility is funded. Staying put is not an option if you want to grow the product,
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
2,237
Reaction Score
2,488
I agree taking advantage Of the low interest rates available now to make us sexier to another conference is a good idea, should we get there the seats will be needed. Also the fan base is a growing one I don't think we have taken a step back yet in attendance have we ? Also it could help our home n home deals from getting backed out(see Michigan thread) making it more attractive to get better teams to come. Also more seats. Equals more revenue.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,374
Reaction Score
16,572
http://www.cga.ct.gov/apa/pdf2011/Rent_00181_08.pdf

Pudge, i've had a hard time trying to find any mention of their debt expense. i found an audit of their finances from a few years ago and i couldn't find any mention of interest expense listed on the income statement, or any mention of long term debt on their balance sheet. does the OPM issue it's own debt, or does it get funneled through another agency? i don't know how this got paid for, but i can't find mention of their bonds. you said you assume they started at 1.15 debt coverage on conservative revenue estimates that we've beaten, but in reality our debt coverage was probably higher than that to start. a 1.15 is pretty low for a speculative development project like this, although i've seen worse deals get pushed. if that's the case and we're blowing away our revenue estimates we may be in good position to expand. really i think the problem is that its' run by the OPM which handles about a hundred other things so i doubt expansion is even on their radar, much less list of things to do.


This pushes it into the Mystery category.

I did read the Original legislation. (and so did others on this board) That Audit, as you point out, has no Debt on it. It seems that CT may just push all these authorities into the Office of Policy & Management. (NYS does not) But, I am certain they raised the $91m in bonds. It may get transferred into some other pot (or maybe they just retired it).

That Operating Statement points out a lot of things. It is not a very accurate view of what is going on. UConn has a nominal rental payment (HEY ... is the University using its 10 events a year allotment?) and probably yields a bunch of cash beyond what we see here on this statement.

Further ... it is very curious how every Profit line items are zero'd out. Should Parking Income = Parking Cost? etc etc

My general view: it is a tremendously underutilize state asset. It has not been developed near its potential by this Third party developer. And, frankly, a good AD would have pulled together a nice expansion in the 2005-2008 timeframe. Why>? Because there was ample money & it was obvious where college football was going.
 

Chin Diesel

Power of Love
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
32,402
Reaction Score
97,205
The easiest way to guarantee 55K butts on most Saturdays is to be in a confernce where Penn St, Ohio St and Michigan will be playing every year against Uconn or Rutgers.

Uconn going to the B1G and being in a division that most likely would include most (or all) of PSU, Michigan, MSU, Ohio St, Purdue, Rutgers and Indiana is the easiest way to ensure 55K fans. All but Purdue and IU are probably easy sellouts.

Any other plan going forward is difficult for me to see adding up to 15K more fans than we regularly get now.
 

CTMike

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
11,420
Reaction Score
40,763
I posted this in the other thread, but -

Think of the make up of the Big East when Rentschler was designed. Think of the current make up, and the make up going forward. Think (very long) on the fact that we do not currently sell out 40k on the regular.

Make no mistake, I would shout from the rooftops if we were filling 55k seats for UConn Football. But it is NOT a simple matter of "build it and they will come", and the funding is not a gimme.

Now, the value proposition would change if it was a matter of the Big Ten saying "Expand and you are in"... but is that even remotely on the table?


To that, I would add- the fact that money is available at relatively cheap rates does not automatically mean that expansion is a good investment. It's like stores saying "The more you BUY the more you SAVE!"

I would love to expand. But expand when demand is increasing. Not holding steady, with the risk of trending downward given our future conference makeup.
 

UConnDan97

predicting undefeated seasons since 1983
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
12,027
Reaction Score
42,264
I posted this in the other thread, but -

Think of the make up of the Big East when Rentschler was designed. Think of the current make up, and the make up going forward. Think (very long) on the fact that we do not currently sell out 40k on the regular.

Make no mistake, I would shout from the rooftops if we were filling 55k seats for UConn Football. But it is NOT a simple matter of "build it and they will come", and the funding is not a gimme.

Now, the value proposition would change if it was a matter of the Big Ten saying "Expand and you are in"... but is that even remotely on the table?


To that, I would add- the fact that money is available at relatively cheap rates does not automatically mean that expansion is a good investment. It's like stores saying "The more you BUY the more you SAVE!"

I would love to expand. But expand when demand is increasing. Not holding steady, with the risk of trending downward given our future conference makeup.

In my opinion, this is right on the money. I would love to be able to fill a 55k+ (hell, I would love to fill a 100k+) stadium, but that is not where we are at....yet. The last thing you want to do is to have a 55k+ capacity stadium and have it be 1/3 empty. There is a positive stigma attached to having a packed house; there is also certainly a negative stigma attached to having one with a lot of empty seats. Many of us have not ventured to a Pitt game on the road (myself included), but I have a feeling we all know what their lack of attendance looks like on tv!
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,782
Reaction Score
15,762
I don't disagree with your point, but the problem is that if we stay at 40K, we resign ourselves to the new 1-AA (big east, cusa, maybe acc, etc.). No one will seriously consider us as a FB add to their mega-conference and no one will come here to play. It's a catch-22, but staying put is, in essence, a signal to the power conferences, both in terms of expansion and of scheduling OOC games here.

Moreover, IMO, your argument rests on past actions. UConn is developing a fanbase, and it will take time to make it equivalent to a UNC, UVa, even TCU - where 50+K is expected, and more is hoped for. If rabid fans were the key, ECU would be in. We grew up w/UConn being a punching bag for 1-AA; my kids are growing up watching us compete and thrive at 1A level. They go because they love the experience (and their dad drags them), but they are not going to stop going b/c someone keeps looking backwards and thinks Pitt or Cuse is a better team than any of the BE adds (less Memphis, and that is temporary).

I don't see the state having the appetite to spend millions to add 15 K seats for 7-8 saturdays a year, but if I were the Prez or AD of UConn, I would have this on the agenda so we can strike as soon as the BB facility is funded. Staying put is not an option if you want to grow the product,
It's one thing to have a plan on the table, that's certainly a step we can take now since it would cost virtually nothing. It's another thing to pre-emptively expand when there is no demand, the quality and notoriety of conference opponents is going down, the prospects of our conference being relevant in the BCS bowl/national championship picture are bleak at best, and the program's overall performance isn't really skyrocketing. 40K full seats in a 40K stadium with a plan in place for any necessary expansion >>>>> 41K full seats in a 55K stadium.
 

geordi

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,186
Reaction Score
2,852
I can't believe that the size of a football stadium is going to make the difference in getting into a higher ranked conference. I would like to see the Rent expanded, but bonanza is right, if we were winning consistently and by large margins, we could fill a 100,000 seat stadium. Even with 40,000 though, we're in the ballpark (short end of the ballpark maybe) but there. Here are some capacities for stadia of universities in major conferences. Michigan certainly would play in most of these.
Wake Forest 31,500 Utah 45,634 Minnesota 50,805
Puke 33,941 Oregon State 45,674 Kansas State 52,200
Washington State 35,117 Northwestern 49,256 Arkansas 53,727
Vanderbilt 39,790 Stanford 50,000 Oregon 53,800
BCU 44,500 Kansas 50,071 Maryland 54,000
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
2,045
Reaction Score
1,882
i think some of you are focusing too much on football in terms of expansion. obviously expansion would open up some doors for us football wise, but you're talking about 6-7 days out of 365. this facility is not a UConn facility, so i doubt our AD has too much input in regards to expansion other than maybe providing some attendance estimates.

don't think of the Rent as our football stadium, think of it the way the NJSports&Expo Authority thinks of the Meadowlands. i don't know what their numbers are, but i wouldn't be surprised if football accounts for less than 50% of the Meadowlands' revenue and the Rent needs to be handled the same way. that being said, low interest rates alone might make the upgrade feasible
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
4,278
Reaction Score
7,316
As far as public perception,
Lousiville's Stadium was intially built with private monies. They had a few very good years under Petrino and his predecessor, in a BCS league, creating more demand , Papa John... An easy sell.

Ask yourself your perception of Rutgers Athletics and the state of New Jersey.
They were starving to be/for a winner, thats why they got so much mileage out of one 2006 season.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,782
Reaction Score
15,762
As far as public perception,
Lousiville's Stadium was intially built with private monies. They had a few very good years under Petrino and his predecessor, in a BCS league, creating more demand , Papa John... An easy sell.

Ask yourself your perception of Rutgers Athletics and the state of New Jersey.
They were starving to be/for a winner, thats why they got so much mileage out of one 2006 season.
And now they still don't fill that expanded stadium, at times not even drawing attendance to fill the old capacity. And TV doesn't like showing games with 15K empty seats.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,298
Reaction Score
19,587
My recollection is that Rentschler Field was built with little or know actual debt, athough there could likely have been an authorization of some kind. At the time of construction the state's coffers were relatively flush and this project, as well as several others, were not bonded, at least not in the traditonal sense of the term. I've participated in projects of that type before, where bonds are authorized but because the rates are better for short term debt, for example, the project is funded with a combination of short term notes which simply get rolled over or paid off when they come due The bond authorization works in effect as the collateral, or backstop for the short term notes. A pubic entity, with a very good credit rating can probably borrow short-term for 1-2 years for under 1%, in February 2012 1 year maturity rates were something like 0.18%, and 2 year rates were 0.24%, obvioulsy depending on credit, and market conditions at the specific date. Even with historic lows in long term debt, around 3.5% maybe, that is effectively like paying cash. In the event that rates start heading up, you can alway go to a long term vehicle.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,782
Reaction Score
15,762
If we get to a point where an expansion is warranted either by one or both of significant demand - every game sold out weeks in advance, 30K+ season tickets with a wait list - or a conference upgrade - a B1G invite was ACTUALLY a realistic scenario - I wouldn't be as concerned about funding. While there would of course be some fiscal tightknits who would complain (as they would about spending money on anything), my belief is they'd find a way to make it happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
342
Guests online
2,827
Total visitors
3,169

Forum statistics

Threads
155,757
Messages
4,030,508
Members
9,864
Latest member
leepaul


Top Bottom