B1G

[ctchamps]

Just some food for thought, I realize that this expansion is Football driven... for now, but what happens if the power conferences break away from the NCAA for the Basketball tourney, there's a rediculous amount of money to be made there and I'm guessing this is not as far fetched of an idea to some of them with a vision broad enough. In that sense grabbing some better basketball schools would be a good idea as well because in that sense we could be worth ALOT more in that situation than we are perceived as right now...

Hypothetical I know but just some thought...

They cut out the middle man (NCAA) and the hangers on for handouts (small conferences)

 

[upstater]

Where are you getting that RU would be losing 27 mm? Because that is what the school subsidizes? In order to save 27mm Rutgers would have to cut every sport they play... because the 27mm subsidy is for the entire athletic department...which includes 10 D1 men's sports and 13 D1 women's sports. You obviously don't think RU would cut its entire athletic program to save 27mm a year, do you?

All schools fund their athletic departments. D1, D2, D3. It doesn't matter. In a year or two...Rutgers will be collecting a lot more money, and the school will soon have to subsidize far less, if at all. If Delany's comment that by the year 2020 each school will be receiving a full share of at least 43 mm a year is correct....instead of subsidizing 27 mm a year, RU will be breaking even by 2016 or 2017 and in the black the following year.

This is pretty easy easy to figure out. Schools without d1 football have sub $10m TOTAL budgets. The reason RU's budget skyrocketed in such a fashion is because it put all its money behind football. Those are the losses. Remove football, and it loses $10m at most, but likely a helluva lot less.

 

[uconnfan68]

This is pretty easy easy to figure out. Schools without d1 football have sub $10m TOTAL budgets. The reason RU's budget skyrocketed in such a fashion is because it put all its money behind football. Those are the losses. Remove football, and it loses $10m at most, but likely a helluva lot less.

And we see now how badly that worked out. We put in virtually nothing... look what we saved... nothing.

 

[buggsy]

This is pretty easy easy to figure out. Schools without d1 football have sub $10m TOTAL budgets. The reason RU's budget skyrocketed in such a fashion is because it put all its money behind football. Those are the losses. Remove football, and it loses $10m at most, but likely a helluva lot less.

Football is not the reason RU spends so much.

in 2011, Rutgers football was break even (UCONN lost 374K by the way, one of two Big East teams that spent more than it took it.) In 2012, Rutgers was in the black, thanks to the stadium naming rights fees and because our attendance was up about 4-5K a game. Problem is the other 22 sports generated squat...and were drains on the school's athletic budget. If you know a way to fund 22 division 1 sports programs for 10 mm...then you are either a magician or a miracle worker.Besides, RU didn't get in to the Big Ten because of our women's soccer team or our men's diving team.

Why would remove football? I know you were not really serious, but your premise that Rutgers' subsidy to the athletics program was so high because of football.... is just flat out wrong.

 

[specialisthusky]

Football is not the reason RU spends so much.

in 2011, Rutgers football was break even (UCONN lost 374K by the way, one of two Big East teams that spent more than it took it.)

so your saying the forbes article that put uconn as the 5th most valuable program for the money spent was wrong and a guy named buggsy is right and his word should be taken over any link?

 

[buggsy]

so your saying the forbes article that put uconn as the 5th most valuable program for the money spent was wrong and a guy named buggsy is right and his word should be taken over any link?

 

[buggsy]

Here's a link...which gives the revenues and expenses of all the teams playing in the Big Six conferences.

University of Connecticut

Football Revenue - $17,528,602
Football Expenses - $17,901,730
Total Football Revenue - $-373,128

Total Sports Revenue - $63,043,322
Total Sports Expenses - $62,948,800
Grand Total Revenue - $94,522



Source: U.S. Department of Education

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...d=205355787249856669203.0004c99ad456d230a5504

 

[upstater]

Football is not the reason RU spends so much.

in 2011, Rutgers football was break even (UCONN lost 374K by the way, one of two Big East teams that spent more than it took it.) In 2012, Rutgers was in the black, thanks to the stadium naming rights fees and because our attendance was up about 4-5K a game. Problem is the other 22 sports generated squat...and were drains on the school's athletic budget. If you know a way to fund 22 division 1 sports programs for 10 mm...then you are either a magician or a miracle worker.Besides, RU didn't get in to the Big Ten because of our women's soccer team or our men's diving team.

Why would remove football? I know you were not really serious, but your premise that Rutgers' subsidy to the athletics program was so high because of football.... is just flat out wrong.

You are being fooled. Unless the cost of those sports increased by 300% over the last 10 years, the lost money is football related. And we're not even talking about the fact that the academic side bonded out the buildout of the stadium, and now you're telling me the revenue on the stadium naming rights--a buildout paid for by the academic side--is being counted as football revenue? Really?

Rutgers went from a 20+m budget to 60m in a mere 10 years. You think they spent 40m on the other sports? Then we see half of the entire budget is subsidized, including last year.

When you say UConn loses money on football, you might be right, you probably are. The fact however is that UConn includes all donation revenue, all licensing revenue, etc., under AD revs, while many other schools dump that into football and basketball. Comparing by sport is like comparing apples and oranges. Each school accounts for revenue differently.

Go here and find Rutgers and compare to UConn: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show

These are sport by sport breakdowns from 2004-05, so you can see that historically, Rutgers has included direct contributions from the academic side, as well as student fees, as football revenue. UConn has never done that. Back then, the school subsidy for sports at Rutgers was $19m. Now it's $28.5m. 50% higher. Seeing that the academic subsidy at the time (not including the cost per student subsidy) was $3m+ at the time, we might assume that Rutgers football still receives the same % of subsidy, which would be $4.5m. That counts as revenues for football.

UConn meanwhile includes no subsidy under football.

 

[upstater]

And we see now how badly that worked out. We put in virtually nothing... look what we saved... nothing.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about the Rutgers stadium buildout? That was a massive debacle. The school took on hundreds of millions of debt, and had to start cutting academic programs. Its academic reputation took such a big hit that it dropped 20+ places in the rankings. UConn leapfrogged ahead of it. As it drops in reputation, it loses an amount of research money that dwarfs any gains from B10 football (which only go to sports anyway). They added 12k seats for hundreds of millions. do the math.

 

[mets1090]

Football is not the reason RU spends so much.

in 2011, Rutgers football was break even (UCONN lost 374K by the way, one of two Big East teams that spent more than it took it.) In 2012, Rutgers was in the black, thanks to the stadium naming rights fees and because our attendance was up about 4-5K a game. Problem is the other 22 sports generated squat...and were drains on the school's athletic budget. If you know a way to fund 22 division 1 sports programs for 10 mm...then you are either a magician or a miracle worker.Besides, RU didn't get in to the Big Ten because of our women's soccer team or our men's diving team.

Why would remove football? I know you were not really serious, but your premise that Rutgers' subsidy to the athletics program was so high because of football.... is just flat out wrong.

If those 2011 figures include the Fiesta Bowl hit, no we lost money. So did Oklahoma (except I think their conference bailed them out and paid for their losses - pretty sure the Big East did no such thing). Not sure what fiscal year that would fall under though.

 

[RMoore1999]

Screw message boards. I am talking about their administrators.

http://voices.yahoo.com/big-ten-expansion-notre-dame-rutgers-missouri-syracuse-5865694.html?cat=14

I thought Fishy subscribes to the "Connecticut to the B1G theory"?

 

[Adios]

I thought Fishy subscribes to the "Connecticut to the B1G theory"?

He thinks we're going to the WAC.

 

[buggsy]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about the Rutgers stadium buildout? That was a massive debacle. The school took on hundreds of millions of debt, and had to start cutting academic programs. Its academic reputation took such a big hit that it dropped 20+ places in the rankings. UConn leapfrogged ahead of it. As it drops in reputation, it loses an amount of research money that dwarfs any gains from B10 football (which only go to sports anyway). They added 12k seats for hundreds of millions. do the math.

wow, you are clueless if you believe the stadium expansion, which was the first thing Delany addressed in meetings with our AD before inviting us...was a debacle.

Since expanding the stadium, our attendance has gone up from under40,000 a few year ago when our stadium held 42K......to nearly 51,000 now. With the attendance we have had since expanding the stadium, we are ahead of schedule in paying the bond back...and now have a stadium the Big Ten deemed ready to go.

You think we're not going to fill that out with Big Ten teams coming in?

And I have news for you, our academic ranking has not dropped 20 spots in the last 3 years. It has been a steady drop over the last decade due to two presidents who were clueless about how to play the USN&WR game.

In 2009, RU was #63. That was the year we expanded. That's a whopping 5 spots...not 20.

We could make that number up in one year with the addition of our medical school along with the upgrade we're going to get in perception from the other Big Ten schools who will most definitely rate us higher in the peer review. I know you are a Ped state fan. I know you know how much Ped State went up once they joined the Big Ten.

To think our stadium expansion had anything to do with our drop in the USN&WR rankings is just plain uninformed.

 

[Brochacho]

Here's a link...which gives the revenues and expenses of all the teams playing in the Big Six conferences.

University of Connecticut

Football Revenue - $17,528,602
Football Expenses - $17,901,730
Total Football Revenue - $-373,128

Total Sports Revenue - $63,043,322
Total Sports Expenses - $62,948,800
Grand Total Revenue - $94,522



Source: U.S. Department of Education

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...d=205355787249856669203.0004c99ad456d230a5504

I'm not taking any post seriously that does not understand the difference between revenue and income.

USS Connecticut! #B1G

 

[RMoore1999]

He thinks we're going to the WAC.

And that's only because the MAC and Sun Belt dont believe that adding Connecticut would increase their per school revenues, so they'd feel no need to expand....

 

[upstater]

wow, you are clueless if you believe the stadium expansion, which was the first thing Delany addressed in meetings with our AD before inviting us...was a debacle.

Since expanding the stadium, our attendance has gone up from under40,000 a few year ago when our stadium held 42K......to nearly 51,000 now. With the attendance we have had since expanding the stadium, we are ahead of schedule in paying the bond back...and now have a stadium the Big Ten deemed ready to go.

You think we're not going to fill that out with Big Ten teams coming in?

And I have news for you, our academic ranking has not dropped 20 spots in the last 3 years. It has been a steady drop over the last decade due to two presidents who were clueless about how to play the USN&WR game.

In 2009, RU was #63. That was the year we expanded. That's a whopping 5 spots...not 20.

We could make that number up in one year with the addition of our medical school along with the upgrade we're going to get in perception from the other Big Ten schools who will most definitely rate us higher in the peer review. I know you are a Ped state fan. I know you know how much Ped State went up once they joined the Big Ten.

To think our stadium expansion had anything to do with our drop in the USN&WR rankings is just plain uninformed.

You are bad at math. Do the math again. 12k additional seats. How does that pay your bond? It doesn't. Do the math.

You were slashing academic programs left and right, your best professors flew the coop, the news spread like wildfire. Much of the ranking in USNWR is based on reputation. The slashing has been going on for years. The bond was placed long before (3 years) the buildout of the stadium. Rutgers used to be in the 40s. Look where it is now.

 

[buggsy]

You are bad at math. Do the math again. 12k additional seats. How does that pay your bond? It doesn't. Do the math.

You were slashing academic programs left and right, your best professors flew the coop, the news spread like wildfire. Much of the ranking in USNWR is based on reputation. The slashing has been going on for years. The bond was placed long before (3 years) the buildout of the stadium. Rutgers used to be in the 40s. Look where it is now.

The stadium allowed us to increase our maximum capacity attendance from 42K to 53K..so you're right...it's 11k, not 12.

Our actual attendance is now north of 50K, and we are not only keeping up with the bond payments...we are generating enough that the school is paying off the debt faster than originally scheduled. What is so difficult to understand about that? Bond re-payment was based on 90 percent capacity...and Rutgers has been above 95 percent capacity in three of the four seasons since expansion, and they've used additional revenue to pay down the 102 million dollar bond ahead of schedule.

That's the math.

Like you said, much of the ranking is based on reputation...and our decline has been steady since the late 80's when I was applying and Rutgers was #38 in the country.

It has not been because of the stadium "debacle" as you put it. You even made my own point in your post that the slashing has been going on for years. Thank you. That's exactly right. It's not a three year decline it's a nearly two decade decline.

Thank god we now have a president in place that understands the value of playing the USN&WR game...because he knows even thought the rankings have so many flaws, he undertsands that perception is reality.

You watch how much Rutgers (and Maryland) start to climb in the rankings with the other 13 schools now giving Rutgers a more favorable peer review than they had previously.

Same reason Penn State, which couldn't sniff the top 75 prior to joining the Big Ten...is now in the 40's. They got the Big Ten bump. We will get ours.

Couple that with the addition of the medical school to Rutgers, and we'll be back in the 50's and eventually the 40's in no time.

 

[upstater]

The stadium allowed us to increase our maximum capacity attendance from 42K to 53K..so you're right...it's 11k, not 12.

Our actual attendance is now north of 50K, and we are not only keeping up with the bond payments...we are generating enough that the school is paying off the debt faster than originally scheduled. What is so difficult to understand about that? Bond re-payment was based on 90 percent capacity...and Rutgers has been above 95 percent capacity in three of the four seasons since expansion, and they've used additional revenue to pay down the 102 million dollar bond ahead of schedule.

That's the math.

Like you said, much of the ranking is based on reputation...and our decline has been steady since the late 80's when I was applying and Rutgers was #38 in the country.

It has not been because of the stadium "debacle" as you put it. You even made my own point in your post that the slashing has been going on for years. Thank you. That's exactly right. It's not a three year decline it's a nearly two decade decline.

Thank god we now have a president in place that understands the value of playing the USN&WR game...because he knows even thought the rankings have so many flaws, he undertsands that perception is reality.

You watch how much Rutgers (and Maryland) start to climb in the rankings with the other 13 schools now giving Rutgers a more favorable peer review than they had previously.

Same reason Penn State, which couldn't sniff the top 75 prior to joining the Big Ten...is now in the 40's. They got the Big Ten bump. We will get ours.

Couple that with the addition of the medical school to Rutgers, and we'll be back in the 50's and eventually the 40's in no time.

11k tix x $50 a ticket x 6.5 games a year = $3.85m a year.
The bond was $121 million. With that high bond, you are paying $8 million a year to service it. This is why I asked you to do the math. And, no, I didn't say Rutgers fell BECAUSE of the stadium. I said it fell because instead of using the money on academics, it destroyed its reputation by slashing departments using retrenchment (i.e. firing tenured faculty) while building out the stadium. There's a huge difference here.

In 2011, Ohio State did a bond at 4.9%, so I assume Rutgers' rate in 2007 (before the Wall Street meltdown) was much higher than 5%, but my calculations above are at 5% for Rutgers. It's likely they are paying even more. I'm not saying Rutgers is doing anything horrible. Michigan and Texas have done the same thing (taken out $250m in bonds for stadium renovation). In Michigan's case, the athletic dept. pay $2 million on that debt service per year while the academic side puts up the rest.

By the way, did you look at my USAToday link to compare UConn football to Rutgers football? If you had, you would have noticed a huge difference in how the two account for revenue.

 

[buggsy]

11k tix x $50 a ticket x 6.5 games a year = $3.85m a year.
The bond was $121 million. With that high bond, you are paying $8 million a year to service it. This is why I asked you to do the math. And, no, I didn't say Rutgers fell BECAUSE of the stadium. I said it fell because instead of using the money on academics, it destroyed its reputation by slashing departments using retrenchment (i.e. firing tenured faculty) while building out the stadium. There's a huge difference here.

In 2011, Ohio State did a bond at 4.9%, so I assume Rutgers' rate in 2007 (before the Wall Street meltdown) was much higher than 5%, but my calculations above are at 5% for Rutgers. It's likely they are paying even more. I'm not saying Rutgers is doing anything horrible. Michigan and Texas have done the same thing (taken out $250m in bonds for stadium renovation). In Michigan's case, the athletic dept. pay $2 million on that debt service per year while the academic side puts up the rest.

By the way, did you look at my USAToday link to compare UConn football to Rutgers football? If you had, you would have noticed a huge difference in how the two account for revenue.

 

[RURM85]

11k tix x $50 a ticket x 6.5 games a year = $3.85m a year.
The bond was $121 million. With that high bond, you are paying $8 million a year to service it. This is why I asked you to do the math. And, no, I didn't say Rutgers fell BECAUSE of the stadium. I said it fell because instead of using the money on academics, it destroyed its reputation by slashing departments using retrenchment (i.e. firing tenured faculty) while building out the stadium. There's a huge difference here.

In 2011, Ohio State did a bond at 4.9%, so I assume Rutgers' rate in 2007 (before the Wall Street meltdown) was much higher than 5%, but my calculations above are at 5% for Rutgers. It's likely they are paying even more. I'm not saying Rutgers is doing anything horrible. Michigan and Texas have done the same thing (taken out $250m in bonds for stadium renovation). In Michigan's case, the athletic dept. pay $2 million on that debt service per year while the academic side puts up the rest.

By the way, did you look at my USAToday link to compare UConn football to Rutgers football? If you had, you would have noticed a huge difference in how the two account for revenue.

The Financing for stadium expansion was $102M ($85M in bonds and remaining $17M in low interest commercial paper). Debt service is approximately $6.9M per year. The stadium expansion was done in 2 phases. 1st phase was 852 premium club level seats (28 luxury boxes) and the second phase was 11,412 additional seats. The 852 premium club level seats bring in approximately $2.5M of revenue per year. The corners of the upper deck may be empty, however, these club seats are almost always filled to capacity. Original estimates said ticket revenue due to expansion would generate $7.5M per year based on capacity rates of 85%. In addition at the same time Rutgers started to institute required donations for 6 premium sections (my guess is 4,800 seats). This is another approximately $1M per year. These seats are always sold out.

 

[upstater]

The Financing for stadium expansion was $102M ($85M in bonds and remaining $17M in low interest commercial paper). Debt service is approximately $6.9M per year. The stadium expansion was done in 2 phases. 1st phase was 852 premium club level seats (28 luxury boxes) and the second phase was 11,412 additional seats. The 852 premium club level seats bring in approximately $2.5M of revenue per year. The corners of the upper deck may be empty, however, these club seats are almost always filled to capacity. Original estimates said ticket revenue due to expansion would generate $7.5M per year based on capacity rates of 85%. In addition at the same time Rutgers started to institute required donations for 6 premium sections (my guess is 4,800 seats). This is another approximately $1M per year. These seats are always sold out.

You're leaving out the part about how it went $19M over budget. What's the rate on $85M in bonds? What's the rate on the additional $19M? What's the rate on the $17M? Debt service at $6.9M? Good for you. Must be incredibly low rates, even though the $85M at least was prior to the meltdown.

Good point about the 800 premium club seats. I did not include those. My fault. Still, I thought I was generous in saying the 12,000 regular seats would be sold for $50. My guess, given the reports from Rutgers fans, is that they sell for a lot less. So, add $2.5M of revenue that I'd missed to my numbers above.

As for the $1M you mentioned last, enlighten me please. How does that figure into additional income to finance the build out? This was simply more capacity that was always there. In fact, one could argue that additional seating prevents Rutgers from charging an even higher amount on that premium seating. I wouldn't add that to the $6.4m you make from the club seats and all 12k seats being sold at $50 a pop (if indeed they are).

Finally, it will be interesting o see how Rutgers shows these costs in the future. If you're anything like the other schools that play this accounting game, you'll continue to show the revenues as accruing to football, while the academic side pays the whole bill. So, the AD says, look at all this money we make!! Meanwhile, not only are they heavily subsidized by the academic side, but the academic side also takes on the full brunt of servicing the bond.

So, it's great to say, we'll make $7M more a year which pays the bond. But if the revenue isn't used to pay the bond, then it's yet another accounting gimmick.

 

[RURM85]

You're leaving out the part about how it went $19M over budget. What's the rate on $85M in bonds? What's the rate on the additional $19M? What's the rate on the $17M? Debt service at $6.9M? Good for you. Must be incredibly low rates, even though the $85M at least was prior to the meltdown.

Good point about the 800 premium club seats. I did not include those. My fault. Still, I thought I was generous in saying the 12,000 regular seats would be sold for $50. My guess, given the reports from Rutgers fans, is that they sell for a lot less. So, add $2.5M of revenue that I'd missed to my numbers above.

As for the $1M you mentioned last, enlighten me please. How does that figure into additional income to finance the build out? This was simply more capacity that was always there. In fact, one could argue that additional seating prevents Rutgers from charging an even higher amount on that premium seating. I wouldn't add that to the $6.4m you make from the club seats and all 12k seats being sold at $50 a pop (if indeed they are).

Finally, it will be interesting o see how Rutgers shows these costs in the future. If you're anything like the other schools that play this accounting game, you'll continue to show the revenues as accruing to football, while the academic side pays the whole bill. So, the AD says, look at all this money we make!! Meanwhile, not only are they heavily subsidized by the academic side, but the academic side also takes on the full brunt of servicing the bond.

So, it's great to say, we'll make $7M more a year which pays the bond. But if the revenue isn't used to pay the bond, then it's yet another accounting gimmick.

Actually the Rutgers Stadium bids were $18M over budget based on the original plan. Rutgers originally planned for 14K additional new seats, additional concession stands, a recruiting lounge, elevator and a new entrance. Rutgers made the decision to scale back (did not get Board approval) by reducing the seats in the end zone section, no entrance, no elevator and took the recruiting lounge off the table (until G Brown donated $5M approximately 1 year later). The financing is for $102M and they did not go over budget.

 

[buggsy]

You're leaving out the part about how it went $19M over budget. What's the rate on $85M in bonds? What's the rate on the additional $19M? What's the rate on the $17M? Debt service at $6.9M? Good for you. Must be incredibly low rates, even though the $85M at least was prior to the meltdown.

Good point about the 800 premium club seats. I did not include those. My fault. Still, I thought I was generous in saying the 12,000 regular seats would be sold for $50. My guess, given the reports from Rutgers fans, is that they sell for a lot less. So, add $2.5M of revenue that I'd missed to my numbers above.

As for the $1M you mentioned last, enlighten me please. How does that figure into additional income to finance the build out? This was simply more capacity that was always there. In fact, one could argue that additional seating prevents Rutgers from charging an even higher amount on that premium seating. I wouldn't add that to the $6.4m you make from the club seats and all 12k seats being sold at $50 a pop (if indeed they are).

Finally, it will be interesting o see how Rutgers shows these costs in the future. If you're anything like the other schools that play this accounting game, you'll continue to show the revenues as accruing to football, while the academic side pays the whole bill. So, the AD says, look at all this money we make!! Meanwhile, not only are they heavily subsidized by the academic side, but the academic side also takes on the full brunt of servicing the bond.

So, it's great to say, we'll make $7M more a year which pays the bond. But if the revenue isn't used to pay the bond, then it's yet another accounting gimmick.

 

[buggsy]

Your post is just so full of inaccuracies and assumptions...it's pure comedy to see you lying to try to make a point.

The stadium expansion was not hundreds of millions as you originally posted. It was not $121 million as you followed up with. It was $102 million. That's it.

http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-releases/2008/12/rutgers-board-of-gov-20081212

the average ticket price at Rutgers this year was $87 dollars...not $50/ticket. That alone is $2.645 million a year you shortchanged the expansion (11k seats x 37 dollars x 6.6 games = 2.645mm.

http://www.tiqiq.com/tiqiqtop25/

Also, 11,000 new seats means an additional 3-4 thousand cars paying 20 bucks a game to park. That's an additional 500k a year. Then there's the additional revenue from seat donations, and concession and merchandise sales for 11,000 additional people, which adds up to several hundred thousand if not more.

Then there's are the additional sponsorships, like the deal Rutgers signed with Audi, for naming rights to the premium seating section. That deal began last year for 650K a year...and escalates to over 1mm a year in year 5 of a 10 year deal.

Finally, you convenently leave out that the expansion also included the construction of 25 corporate and private loge boxes, which brings in millions of additional dollars that we weren't getting before the renovation.

You just have no idea what you are talking about in this case. None. You think the only money gained is by the 11k seats themselves? That's embarrassingly foolish.

Finally, 85mm of the bonds are Tax Exempt Rutgers bonds, and only 17 mm are taxable, Commerical paper bonds.

I got news for you. We' owe less than 8mm a year on the debt service, bu we're paying off more than that. That is why we are ahead of schedule. A debacle? Hardly.

The Star-Leger, notorious for its animosity towards Rutgers, even wrote an article that the repayment is ahead of schedule.

The stadium is a big reason why we were ready and able to be invited into the Big Ten. We have a stadium worthy of joining the premier league in the country...and for that reason alone...it was worth every penny.

To call that a "debacle" is just uninformed.

 

[upstater]

Actually the Rutgers Stadium bids were $18M over budget based on the original plan. Rutgers originally planned for 14K additional new seats, additional concession stands, a recruiting lounge, elevator and a new entrance. Rutgers made the decision to scale back (did not get Board approval) by reducing the seats in the end zone section, no entrance, no elevator and took the recruiting lounge off the table (until G Brown donated $5M approximately 1 year later). The financing is for $102M and they did not go over budget.

My mistake. I thought the project went over budget by that much, not the initial bids.

Here's what Mccormick said when I did a search: "The board granted the university authority to issue additional debt obligations up to the $102 million limit, which will be financed by revenues generated by the 12,000 new seats and other revenues from the stadium itself." This is partially what buggsy was saying, that in addition to the 11k seats, they would charge premium prices on already extant seats. Questionable logic right there. But whatever.

I still wonder, and I'm asking you, whether Rutgers football finances the debt on that $102 million. if it does, good for them, because so many universities say they are gaining new revenue by building out facilities, but that money is never then used to pay the debt.

In other words, does the academic side service the debt AND subsidize the AD by $28.5m, or does the AD pay it?