Warde on Record: 10,000 More Seats (Hartford Business Journal)

[Pudge]

@Pudge Still avoiding the question.

Rutgers stadium could be 30,000 seats and they'd be in the B1G due to jerseys population. What don't you understand. If the Big never called, they'd be in a world of hurt financially.

You can't host build it and expect them to come because you watched field of dreams. That's insane.

I would love to have a 50k stadium. I really would. But with the financial peril we find ourselves soon to be facing, I find myself wanting to dump all resources into the staff then to seats that will be filled maybe once a year, if that.

How can you justify expanding a stadium that has seen attendance decrease EVEN WHEN we were winning with edsall?

It's not build it they will come, it's not win they will come - it's something other than that why people aren't showing up like they used to. Be it the economy or whatever, but I'm just not sure I want to throw a scarce resource ( money) at what I perceive to be a non issue.

If they want to do both ( retain coaches and expand) great - I just can't see one not affecting the other.

You are getting annoying. You imply that I am not answering your question. Basically ... you don't like my answer (and then you feel justified in a rude retort).

Financial peril? WE ARE IN FINANCIAL PERIL NOW.

We had the low cost/best structure of the Three Universities. They expanded ... and they did the things that needed to be done to look attractive for selection. We did not. Stadium is clearly one of the key - largely unwritten criteria - and we took the Edsall momentum & we flushed it. Hathaway did. And our respective Fanbase is not what we were a mere 3 years ago. The only way forward, IMHO, is to go hard at Fully building out the program. You assume that we are going to lose. Guess what ... friends ... Louisville & Rutgers took that bet and they WON. And I can make a case that we were better positioned ... and we can buff our Football again for (what I believe is) the next round.

Of course ... many will moan ... this is over. We will be stuck. I say that "Cartels" always leak (that is Economics 101). This will open up again and there will be more in the P5. This isn't like the NFL. There are more 30,000 State Universities growing. As much as the top elite want exclusivity, I say that gives lots of avenues for this to break. You see us as Temple. I see us as a Bigger Better Rutgers/Louisville/Arizona/NC State/Iowa/Arkansas ... a Program that can have a BRAND in New England & find its way to play at the highest level. We are not that far ... we aren't UMass. We can chin ourselves over the bar. And ... you are worried about 10,000 empty seats ... and that is probably $50m in cost. (Rutgers, by the way, spent more than $110m & Louisville more). We can use the existing Connecticut Public Authority and do the bonds easily in a low interest rate environment. I don't think that's a big deal. Insane? Dropping to a level that plays a regional MAC schedule ... or this AAC level should not be our zenith.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Cartels do leak.

UCONN simply needs to continue to work to build upon our status as the premier public state university in the Northeast and Tri-State region.

The simple economics of football and ticket sales revenue is that you can generate more revenue in only two ways - raising ticket prices and/or selling more tickets.

The concept of waiting until a stadium is sold out regularly to generate more seats, when the political/social/and economic climate can support it, is just dumb, small time, backwards save a penny now, instead of making a million later thinking.

It's better to have 50,000 seats to sell in the future, rather than 40,000 - it's that simple. The cost of doing it now, the investment that it would take right now, is well worth the returns that can be generated in the future.

UCONN only generated 22,000 or so on average for the season - actually through the gates last year. That includes high points and low points in the entire lifespan of the stadium so far with regards to attendance - in a 3-9 season, that started 0-9.

A winning program, even with our new scheduling, will do quite well in a 50,000 seat arena. UCONN has that. To not capitalize on it - well....

on the back of dual national titles in basketball, it would seem that now would be an ideal time to push it through the CT state legislative and beaurocratic process it would take.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't think The Rent will ever exceed 50,000 in capacity, or that we should even try. In the era of hugescreen TVs and Internet-enabled content, stadiums are getting smaller, not larger.

The new Yankee Stadium is about 5,000-6,000 seats smaller than the old (capacity: approx. 50,100), and Stanford Stadium, which once hosted a Super Bowl and could hold about 80,000, now holds 50,000.

If we have a cozy 50,000 seat stadium that we fill from 80-95% of the capacity on a regular basis, we'll be in great shape.

It doesn't need to be bigger, really. At 50,000 permanent seating (with an actual reported capacity that would be somewhere in the 52-53k range), Rentschler would hold the title of being the biggest dedicated FBS stadium in New England and New York State, and the scheduling and recruiting advantages that would go with that title - and the capability to easily expand beyond that should any other competitor in the region decide they would like to be the top dog in the d---k measuring contest. ;-)

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@Pudge Your basis for expanding the stadium isn't in reality.

You take Rutgers for example and their expansion was widely panned as financially irresponsible and without merit.

They won the B1G lottery due to their state size. Period.

Louisville went through a period of great success with Strong and Bridgewater while we fell off the map with P. This couldn't have happened at a worse time for UConn athletics.

So now with the athletic dept in peril, you want to expand a stadium by 10,000 seats when we averaged nearly 20,000 less people than that a game with a schedule that is likely to become much worse going forward.

All available resources should be going into things that affect the on field performance of the team. Adding 10,000 that won't be needed nearly ever? Foolish.

This premise also operates under the idea idea that with one phone call the B1G can't call and say you're in - just expand the stadium.

Out of curiosity if UConn makes it back to a fringe top 25 program and competes for AAC Titles, who are we playing that will draw 50,000k?

 

[UConnJim]

Bottom line is UConn needs to expand the Rent as soon as possible and put pressure on the football program and athletic department to fill it. Why? At this juncture, we need to show everyone that we are committed to football and committed to improving our football program. In addition, if we ever hope to schedule big time football programs, we need a bigger stadium. As it stands right now, if a conference is looking at schools to add, UConn would have the smallest stadium in the Big 10, the 3rd smallest in the ACC, and the smallest in the Big 12. In my opinion, a 50k stadium is the minimum to be considered an attractive target. Also, for all of you who say that we could expand the stadium if we get an invite, we already have enough doubters out there. We need to continue to make UConn more attractive to conferences.

 

[Carl Spackler]

@Pudge Your basis for expanding the stadium isn't in reality.

You take Rutgers for example and their expansion was widely panned as financially irresponsible and without merit.

They won the B1G lottery due to their state size. Period.

Louisville went through a period of great success with Strong and Bridgewater while we fell off the map with P. This couldn't have happened at a worse time for UConn athletics.

So now with the athletic dept in peril, you want to expand a stadium by 10,000 seats when we averaged nearly 20,000 less people than that a game with a schedule that is likely to become much worse going forward.

All available resources should be going into things that affect the on field performance of the team. Adding 10,000 that won't be needed nearly ever? Foolish.

This premise also operates under the idea idea that with one phone call the B1G can't call and say you're in - just expand the stadium.

Out of curiosity if UConn makes it back to a fringe top 25 program and competes for AAC Titles, who are we playing that will draw 50,000k?

I know you're not writing to me, but you're thinking is exactly that backwards mentality that has led us to where we're at now.

is it better to buy a stock or commodity or something when it's at it's periodic high point or low point? Never mind. That will just confuse things.

There are only 6,7,max 8 home games a year. If just one of those games in the next 4-5 years has the potential to sell 50,000 seats, and we do not have 50,000 seats to sell - the university and it's leadership has done no better than Hathaway's regime did.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Pudge is right, we should have expanded the stadium years ago. I was one of those guys who have been screaming for years that our stadium needs to be at minimal 50k. It is just not only about attendance today, it is about perception how seriously we take football going forward. Anything less than 50k is simply viewed as small time.

We need to have a plan today to go to 50k+ to garner any interest from p5 conferences. It is not even a choice anymore.

 

[Nostical]

Whoever said the number of chairbacks was reduced to accomodate the higher than planned cost for an upgraded audio/visual system, etc. is correct. I was told exactly that by the stadium's head construction project manager. He never mentioned the "soft concrete". He also said the structure is ready for expansion and it would not be a huge effort to get it done.
I have a feeling that WM's comments about how the team's performance will trigger any stadium expansion means we are moving rather quickly toward expansion. Look for an announcement much sooner than his comments may immediately imply. It's just a feeling on my part but it feels right. WM and especially SH know how high the stakes are.

 

[junglehusky]

If money/budget/foundation structure allows, they could cap the capacity at 60K but add to fan experience by covering the seating area of the stadium (similar to the way many English Premier League soccer stadiums do). Calling a spade a spade, UCONN football fans are a bit fair weathered (literally) and covering them from rain/snow would go a long way to eliminating excuses for not going to games while still allowing our home team to experience the home-field advantages of New England weather.

I can't recall where I read it, but there was a recent stadium project where they drew it up with the covering / partial roof but took it out since it was very costly. Like, an additional 30-40% on top of the original cost.

 

[Dooley]

I can't recall where I read it, but there was a recent stadium project where they drew it up with the covering / partial roof but took it out since it was very costly. Like, an additional 30-40% on top of the original cost.

Well if I win the PowerBall, we aint's gotz to worry about cost!

 

[HuskyPete]

We don't have 10 years...we need to build in 5 years time minimal. I like to numbers of the stadium it talks B1G, if we would be heading ACC we would not have to expand at all. It sounds like Dooley is flipping the bill LOL!!!

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I want to know why the word H E A T was changed to law by the profanity filter.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Schellenberger got new Cardinal stadium built with private funds by winning. Petrino got that stadium expanded by averaging 10+wins a year before he left.

 

[Palatine]

Build it and they will come.

 

[Pudge]

Whoever said the number of chairbacks was reduced to accomodate the higher than planned cost for an upgraded audio/visual system, etc. is correct. I was told exactly that by the stadium's head construction project manager. He never mentioned the "soft concrete". He also said the structure is ready for expansion and it would not be a huge effort to get it done.
I have a feeling that WM's comments about how the team's performance will trigger any stadium expansion means we are moving rather quickly toward expansion. Look for an announcement much sooner than his comments may immediately imply. It's just a feeling on my part but it feels right. WM and especially SH know how high the stakes are.

OK ... CornHuskBask ...

This guy is projecting something here. You would discount this. But, I know ... he knows ... that this is how it works. Rutgers - got a hint that they were a candidate to be B1G - they put together an awful structure to finance the expansion. Not backed by the legislature; said they were going to raise money from Private sources; then, it all collapses. In the end, Corzine found money for it. Why? Because someone whispered in their ear that it was a pre-requisite to moving forward.

No one is going to whisper in my ear. But, I believe Warde Manuel gives out smoke signals here. This, he believes, is a first step to the next level. He knows that we won't automatically project to fill it.

But ... to be clear ... given the Debt Service Coverage Ratios from 2003 & the fact that interest rates are lower, I believe a 10,000 seat expansion can easily be financed (with current Revenue projection of a decent year - 35,000 attendance at normal prices) by collapsing the existing and restructuring the bonds. $50m is easily available in Authority bonding.

So ... go worry how to fill the seats. MOI? I think that is that slick guy Diaco's problem.

 

[noeynox]

I'm with Pudge. The failed to strike while the iron was hot sort of speak. Waiting for the demand to fill it was stupid. RU created a smoke and mirrors "waiting list" for tickets while they were giving tickets away. A bigger stadium would have made it easier to draw better teams here. We will see how long they wait to expand.

 

[sportsart]

There is what, like a $400 mill + surplus in the state, that our Gov Dan was thinking about giving out in the form of $55 checks (thank God it ain't happening)

Our incompetent state government is going to blow it anyways. Why not roll the dice with a "build it and they will come" attitude? Throw $150 mill towards the stadium with the hopes it shows a "big time" mentality. Throw in the assumption Diaco is the man and what you have is a terrific football program with a big boy stadium.

We are so screwed if we just sit back and if it doesn't work, so what's $150 mill in the scheme of things. If we don't do anything, we are just living on a prayer.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

That Warde is on the record here is an excellent step forward. He's thinking correctly.

 

[SubbaBub]

There are ways to fill the building if it comes to that. I don't think this year is the time to expand, with the P era and it's record low attendances still fresh.

Let's win some games, book a few marquee opponents before building. WM statement is perfectly timed.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Eh, this is more of the same we heard from Hathaway. It has to be demand based. Neither Rutgers or Ville had the ticket demand to expand their stadiums. But this is CT.

Yeah and look how that "ticket demand/stadium expand" thing worked out for those schools. The BiG? The ACC? Ahhhh . . . oh wait . . . . never mind. We're talking big time college football and as you point out . . . . "This is CT".

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Holding everything else static in the past few years, the stadium capacity was a none issue.

Rutgers/Maryland were added for cable boxes and access to recruits.

Ville as added because we were in the midst of the P era and they were on their way to winning the league.

If the B1G called and said expand the stadium and you're in - we'd do it in a second.

There's no sense in expanding when demand doesn't necessitate it and were already up against financial hurdles.

Do people want 20,000 empty seats or 10,000 for Memphis, Tulane etc or more money to retain coaches etc.

Not gonna go into all the marketing reasons for expanding Rentschler, but toquote from the movie Field of Dreams . . . "IF YOU BUILD IT, they will come". Simply put, nobody - particular not the stud recruits UConn is gonna need to get this done - wants to play in the smallest stadium in big time college football.

 

[CTMike]

Not gonna go into all the marketing reasons for expanding Rentschler, but toquote from the movie Field of Dreams . . . "IF YOU BUILD IT, they will come". Simply put, nobody - particular not the stud recruits UConn is gonna need to get this done - wants to play in the smallest stadium in big time college football.

Not going to go in to the marketing reasons (or any other reasons), but you rest your case on a movie quote? Well if that doesn't get this state going nothing will!

I've always been in favor of expanding the Rent but it will be a lot easier to swallow with just one winning season under our belt. Let people know that the ship has been righted and they'll be more accepting of the vision us die hards already have. If a year from now we've gone to a bowl game (and maybe even won!) that's such an easier sell.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Not going to go in to the marketing reasons (or any other reasons), but you rest your case on a movie quote? Well if that doesn't get this state going nothing will!

I've always been in favor of expanding the Rent but it will be a lot easier to swallow with just one winning season under our belt. Let people know that the ship has been righted and they'll be more accepting of the vision us die hards already have. If a year from now we've gone to a bowl game (and maybe even won!) that's such an easier sell.

No argument from me. Winning - and getting back on the track UConn was on - will go a long way. However, the expansion needs to take place win, lose or draw.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I'm with Pudge and Carl on this one. The time to expand was around 2007. Consistent sellouts or near sellouts after two dreadful seasons (2005 & 2006). Pudge sounds much smarter on the bonding and financial aspect than I am, but what he's saying makes sense.

However, if we are going to stick to the "ticket demand has to be the catalyst" mantra we are doomed and will never see the Rent expanded in our lifetimes. We are not selling out the Rent in the AAC. We're just not.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I'm with Pudge and Carl on this one. The time to expand was around 2007. Consistent sellouts or near sellouts after two dreadful seasons (2005 & 2006). Pudge sounds much smarter on the bonding and financial aspect than I am, but what he's saying makes sense.

However, if we are going to stick to the "ticket demand has to be the catalyst" mantra we are doomed and will never see the Rent expanded in our lifetimes. We are not selling out the Rent in the AAC. We're just not.

Jimmy - I partially agree with you, Pudge and Spackler in that 2007 was the right time to expand and we missed that window.

I also agree with CTMike in the sense that while we're never likely ( unless we're in the B1G) have the season ticket demand for the extras seats, based off the last couple of seasons were very far off from in " normal circumstances" expanding.

Ultimately, I guess it's something that needs to be done but I just hope it doesn't come at the expense of say football salaries or the ability to provide full cost of attendance, etc.

I've belabored this enough though - I'll let everyone else have the last word though I think we all agree it'll have to expanded some day.