Proposed $24 million in repairs, upgrades at Rentschler Field comes as UConn football reaches agreement to extend playing at East Hartford stadium

[LoyalFanCT]

Proposed $24 million in repairs, upgrades at Rentschler Field comes as UConn football reaches agreement to extend playing at East Hartford stadium

Proposed $24 million in repairs, upgrades at Rentschler Field comes as UConn football reaches agreement to extend playing at East Hartford stadium

A plan to start tackling big-ticket repairs at Rentschler Field in East Hartford — the home turf of the University of Connecticut football program — could get a major boost if state law…

www.courant.com

 

[huskymedic]

Background thread(s) <<

Shortcut to above article <<

Tentative lease extension: -> The five-year lease extension, according to CRDA, calls for UConn to pay $174,000 in rent for each game in the upcoming season, game day expenses for special promotions and events and a $3 per ticket surcharge. UConn keeps all ticket revenue, suite sales, permanent ad revenue in the building and broadcast rights. The stadium and UConn split the proceeds from the sale of UConn merchandise. <-

-> UConn Athletic Director David Benedict had no comment on the lease extension. But Benedict echoed earlier comments that UConn supports the decision to make major deferred maintenance investments at Rentschler Field.“These necessary upgrades will unquestionably be a benefit for our student-athletes and UConn fans,” Benedict said in an email. <-

 

[UCFBfan]

Lamont’s proposal, however, will have to pass muster with lawmakers, some voicing concerns about such major investments when UConn Athletics is running deep operating deficits.

State Rep. Vincent Candelora, the House Republican leader, said he is still reviewing the details of the Rentschler proposal, but it is obvious that all buildings need maintenance.

“And I think we would all recognize that,” Candelora said. “The bigger question, I think, that we would have to seek answers to is the level of deficiency that UConn has been running over the past year and how we fix that operating deficiency before we start continued investments in the programs. A $53 million deficit is very troubling and problematic.”

A few things here. First off, if they want to question the operating deficits, how about they wonder what the deficits would be should UConn not play at Rentschler anymore and have to drop football down (which won't happen). Is that stadium just going to sit there, a remembrance of another failed state project that resulted in a lack of vision of what was needed to turn this athletic program into a prosperous one? Secondly, it's time for the lawmakers to look around at the college landscape. There is movement happening right now and if we don't invest heavily and take the financial hits now, we won't get to a conference where we will reap the monetary rewards for this time in the wilderness. So fixing the Rent is needed. It's a joke that UConn has to pay to play there, but I'm not sure if that's a common practice for teams who play off campus. The fixes that are being done are ones that are common sense. Roof fix because it's leaking? Sealant needed because the concrete is leaking? Fiber optic wires for TV so they don't need a few days before gameday to set up? No Wi-Fi?!?! Are you kidding on that one?

Wake up!

 

[TMB4405]

I love how people love to discuss operating deficits yet most is due to scholarship dollars and bad deals inhibiting the ability to make more revenue. Scholarship costs are debateable “costs” but the university is not cutting a check for a hard cost there. And the intangible value to the university is worth the operating deficits. Anyone who knows what the university looked and felt like before the explosion of hoops success knows what I mean. More athletic success means more demand from applicants.

 

[CTBasketball]

A few things here. First off, if they want to question the operating deficits, how about they wonder what the deficits would be should UConn not play at Rentschler anymore and have to drop football down (which won't happen). Is that stadium just going to sit there, a remembrance of another failed state project that resulted in a lack of vision of what was needed to turn this athletic program into a prosperous one? Secondly, it's time for the lawmakers to look around at the college landscape. There is movement happening right now and if we don't invest heavily and take the financial hits now, we won't get to a conference where we will reap the monetary rewards for this time in the wilderness. So fixing the Rent is needed. It's a joke that UConn has to pay to play there, but I'm not sure if that's a common practice for teams who play off campus. The fixes that are being done are ones that are common sense. Roof fix because it's leaking? Sealant needed because the concrete is leaking? Fiber optic wires for TV so they don't need a few days before gameday to set up? No Wi-Fi?!?! Are you kidding on that one?

Wake up!

If you don’t own something, expect to pay rent. UConn has no leverage in this contract negotiation, where else would they play? CRDA sets the price.

 

[UCFBfan]

If you don’t own something, expect to pay rent. UConn has no leverage in this contract negotiation, where else would they play? CRDA sets the price.

I agree but I don't understand why the state wouldn't put money into fixing the stadium their main tenant plays in. Want to close the athletic deficit, make the football team desirable for the ACC. You do that by having an updated stadium and good football team

 

[chalk1]

This is as simple as viewing the upkeep like you would your home. Replacing the roof, fixing leaks and doing standard maintenance. You can fix it and live there for many years comfortably or just live in it and watch it fall apart around you. I say fixing it is a pretty basic no brainer.

 

[freescooter]

Candaloria’s view is simple minded. These expenses are capital costs. In simple terms, just like your house, certain items eventually wear out and need replacement. Roof, furnace all have useful lives. Eventually they need replacement. Other things need upgrading due to technological changes. I used a blackberry when the rent opened. Do they even exist now? One other interesting note is that the state wanted to own Rentschler when it was built. UConn was willing but Johnny Rowland wanted it in his control.

Operating costs for the athletic department are different. Those involve day to day costs of running athletic teams. Is Candoloria advocating a move to DIII? The NEC? What a dope!

 

[uconnfan68]

If you don’t own something, expect to pay rent. UConn has no leverage in this contract negotiation, where else would they play? CRDA sets the price.

The state "owns" both the stadium and the public school. This is only a matter of which pocket gets picked.

 

[uconnfan68]

I agree but I don't understand why the state wouldn't put money into fixing the stadium their main tenant plays in. Want to close the athletic deficit, make the football team desirable for the B1G. You do that by having an updated stadium and good football team

ftfy

 

[DoctorWho85]

UConn has no choice but to renew. If they didn't they have nowhere else to play. The state now has no choice but to invest into the stadium because UConn has to play there. It's not ideal, but if Mora improves this year, I think the money will be seen as a good investment for the future.

 

[freescooter]

UConn has no choice but to renew. If they didn't they have nowhere else to play. The state now has no choice but to invest into the stadium because UConn has to play there. It's not ideal, but if Mora improves this year, I think the money will be seen as a good investment for the future.

I’d say generally that is true but there will always be a cadre who will complain. If UConn is successful they will find something to complain about. If not, they will complain that UConn isn’t successful. Some, like the honorable Vin Candeloria, want UConn athletic teams to compete at a high level but to do so on a D3 budget. Although he likely has zero clue about the details. He is the house minority leader in a house where his caucus is minuscule. If Lamont says 2+2=4 he’ll say it doesn’t but will never say what it does equal.

 

[UCFBfan]

ftfy

I don't care who it is, just as long as the money is good. I'm being realistic now with the next spot likely being the ACC with the Pac-12 about to be shredded.

 

[Rich]

I love how people love to discuss operating deficits yet most is due to scholarship dollars and bad deals inhibiting the ability to make more revenue. Scholarship costs are debateable “costs” but the university is not cutting a check for a hard cost there. And the intangible value to the university is worth the operating deficits. Anyone who knows what the university looked and felt like before the explosion of hoops success knows what I mean. More athletic success means more demand from applicants.

Scholarships are not 'costs', but theoretical 'foregone tuition' - e.g. revenue.

So that three star QB is depriving the University of gouging some poor, unsuspecting non-US student, LOL.

 

[CL82]

I agree but I don't understand why the state wouldn't put money into fixing the stadium their main tenant plays in. Want to close the athletic deficit, make the football team desirable for the ACC. You do that by having an updated stadium and good football team

An athletic department that wasn’t hemorrhaging money would also be a good thing.

 

[uconnfan68]

I don't care who it is, just as long as the money is good. I'm being realistic now with the next spot likely being the ACC with the Pac-12 about to be shredded.

I’m expecting some of the ACC to get picked too. FlaSt + ? -> Sec; UNC, UVA -> B1G

 

[HuskyDogArt]

This is not a political view, however I know that Vin Candeloria is trying to keep fiscal spending down. I commend him for that, however, Rent being fixed up should not be compromised because it is for our flagship university.

Is he wrong for trying to be fiscally responsible?I'll say, for the most part no. He is, like I am, a businessman, and the state, all states, should be run like a business. Unfortunately, I bet he isn't an alumni of UConn, so he doesn't care about them, and want to cut UConn's budget.

Now, any more on this by me will be in the cesspool.

 

[zls44]

Art: states should absolutely NOT be run as businesses, they do entirely different things but I'll leave it for the cesspool

 

[UCFBfan]

This is not a political view, however I know that Vin Candeloria is trying to keep fiscal spending down. I commend him for that, however, Rent being fixed up should not be compromised because it is for our flagship university.

Is he wrong for trying to be fiscally responsible?I'll say, for the most part no. He is, like I am, a businessman, and the state, all states, should be run like a business. Unfortunately, I bet he isn't an alumni of UConn, so he doesn't care about them, and want to cut UConn's budget.

Now, any more on this by me will be in the cesspool.

Don't disagree at all with what you say. However, as a business owner, you need to look at your long term profits and ways of getting there. Being a UConn alumni has nothing to do with it. Putting in money now increases your chances of making a profit in the future, hopefully the near future (conference realignment). Running a business is a risk and putting in money into the Rent and being concerned about the athletic budget is understandable right now. However, understanding why it is that why and the best way to get out of it, is being a better business IMO.

 

[CCSU97]

State taxpayers spent $70m+ to build the stadium for UConn' use. Invested another $25m in capital repairs/upgrades. That's more than $100m in direct expenses for a football program.

Who do you expect to pick up the tab - CT taxpayers? Of course UConn has to pay rental and operations costs! Even with the payments made and planned by UConn, State taxpayers will have subsidised a good portion of this facility.

I'm remain stunned at the amount of people who think the State budget is an open checkbook for UConn.

You also want the state to invest in a new Civic Center, but have no way to cover the costs.

The state has many other fiscal obligations - local education, transportation infrastructure, social services, public safety, courts system, environmental and recreational facilities, other State universities and community colleges!

It's time that some of you consider what the majority of taxpayers think are priorities for state resources.

 

[Exit 4]

A few thoughts.

I would like to hear this administration, both the Gov's office and the University President talk about what they envision the University with respect the Rent's future - long term. Do they believe the Rent is the place for the next 30-50 years or do they believe that an on campus location is the ultimate end game. Before the state is set to approve a capital intensive maintenance plan I think we need some leadership here on this matter that is gnawing at many of us in the greater community. And I think there are basically three answers here:

a) The Rent is the only path forward, an on campus stadium will never be economically viable or worthwhile. If this is the case, lets just put that out there again so alumni and lawmakers can move forward.
b) An on campus stadium needs to be the end game and we need to position for it. Okay great, so lets craft a plan to maintain the Rent and also start the siting process for an on campus stadium. Set it up as a 8-10 year plan.
c) We don't know- but we are going to revisit the issue for a year and come back.

If the answer is A, then maybe the Rent should be transferred to the University to own and operate outright. If owned directly by the University they might be able to leverage alumni for naming rights and other improvements over time. Conversely, no one is donating to the CDRA.

Transferring ownership won't change the deficits per se, particularly in the short run, but it might increase the community's sense of ownership in the structure and ultimately utilization and attendance. The gameday experience should improve too as the University logo should be foisted onto ever entrance and spare surface reinforcing you are on a bit of University grounds. Perhaps University students would be more strongly encouraged to be volunteers and/or employees on gameday as well. Currently the stadium does have the feel of a rented community room for a birthday party at the condo complex.

 

[zls44]

State taxpayers spent $70m+ to build the stadium for UConn' use. Invested another $25m in capital repairs/upgrades. That's more than $100m in direct expenses for a football program.

Who do you expect to pick up the tab - CT taxpayers? Of course UConn has to pay rental and operations costs! Even with the payments made and planned by UConn, State taxpayers will have subsidised a good portion of this facility.

I'm remain stunned at the amount of people who think the State budget is an open checkbook for UConn.

You also want the state to invest in a new Civic Center, but have no way to cover the costs.

The state has many other fiscal obligations - local education, transportation infrastructure, social services, public safety, courts system, environmental and recreational facilities, other State universities and community colleges!

It's time that some of you consider what the majority of taxpayers think are priorities for state resources.

Find another state school that pays rent in a facility that was built exclusively for that team. UCLA, but even that's a dubious claim (the Rose Bowl was NOT built to house UCLA football).

We get it. CCSU is envious of the funding. Duly noted. Don't pretend you have any other motivation.

 

[Exit 4]

State taxpayers spent $70m+ to build the stadium for UConn' use. Invested another $25m in capital repairs/upgrades. That's more than $100m in direct expenses for a football program.

Who do you expect to pick up the tab - CT taxpayers? Of course UConn has to pay rental and operations costs! Even with the payments made and planned by UConn, State taxpayers will have subsidised a good portion of this facility.

I'm remain stunned at the amount of people who think the State budget is an open checkbook for UConn.

You also want the state to invest in a new Civic Center, but have no way to cover the costs.

The state has many other fiscal obligations - local education, transportation infrastructure, social services, public safety, courts system, environmental and recreational facilities, other State universities and community colleges!

It's time that some of you consider what the majority of taxpayers think are priorities for state resources.

Generally I am a fiscal conservative and in most circumstances I take the view that economic development lead by the state is a dubious venture with poor results and no accountability. And so your question is not wrong here with respect to the state flagship and its athletics. However, I have a counter question, why is it that a good 39-42 other states have no trouble supporting such ventures?

Really, the other state's not playing in the top tier of athletics and academics;
1) Maine
2) NH
3) VT
4) RI
5) DE
6) ND
7) SD
8) MT
bubble states:
9) NM - not sure we can really consider the NM schools as competing top tier
10) HI - yes, state supported, but again seems the Rainbow Warriors have some natural limits
11) NY - support is sort of diluted across too many SUNY schools.

In a world that keeps growing while CT stays the same size, our state flagship university is one of the very few things that gives this state a brand in North America. This is our state marketing tool. And part of that entire package is having a school that operates in the same manner the majority of state flagships. This is, in part, about competing for students too and top academic talent as well. And increasing out of state enrollment which is also important for our economy and national reputation.

 

[CTBasketball]

The state "owns" both the stadium and the public school. This is only a matter of which pocket gets picked.

Different pockets have different priorities.

 

[CCSU97]

Find another state school that pays rent in a facility that was built exclusively for that team. UCLA, but even that's a dubious claim (the Rose Bowl was NOT built to house UCLA football).

We get it. CCSU is envious of the funding. Duly noted. Don't pretend you have any other motivation.

Really, the Rose Bowl that was built in 1922? The stadium wasn't the home of UCLA until 1982? Horrible example.

Name another stadium built in the last 40 years built off campus for the exclusive use of a FBS teams and paid 100% by the State.

The UConn situation is unique and complex. The school needed a FBS stadium, but didn't have the land, or capital to viable build one on their own. The State borrowed money (bonded $70M) to build a facility and yes, that has to be paid back through user fees. As the primary (and basically only) tenant, UConn bears that burden. If CDRA could get more events or another tenant (MLS team, etc), the costs to UConn would be reduced.

The State built the Civic Center in the 1970s and the Whalers paid rent and had limited revenues from ancillary uses. The State had to pay off its investment.

The football stadium was not a gift from CT taxpayers to UConn - it was a loan. A loan that has to be paid off. The fact that UConn is not a P5 caliber program and generates limited revenues is not my problem.

Transferring the ownership of The Rent from OPM to UConn is fine with me - if UConn pays the remaining G.O. Bonds. Then the University can run it as an special fund enterprise or something. I have no issues with UConn trying to make it work out financially on their own books.

The problem we have here is everyone things these capital facilities are free gifts from taxpayers and yet UConn athletic finances are probably not enough to cover full operations and capital repairs/maintained.

Yes, CCSU is absolutely envious of this open checkbook you expect from the State. Central plays in a gym built in 1965 and UConn fans complain about the conditions of Gampel built in 1990 as another 'gift' from the State.