Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CL82, post: 5063851, member: 44"] I'm not sure that there's any need for a dramatic infrastructure upgrade. As I've said here often, I just don't see the need to build a limited access highway to a stadium that'll get used six times a year. There's also no need to get approvals from Mansfield if we build in the athletic campus, so while they undoubtedly be the normal Mansfield objections, they are essentially mirror buzzing gnats regarding the project. Let me correct the last piece of mythology, that we see here commonly, that somehow Mansfield stopped us from building Storrs originally. While there was a proposal to build on campus, it was absolutely a huge wishlist item that included a stadium, the equivalent of the Burton complex in the equivalent of the Shenkman center. The legislature proposed it not because of any imagined statewide power of Mansfield residence, but because they felt it was prohibitively expensive. Now that we would be building just the stadium and not the support facilities, those objections might not be there. The reason why we ended up in East Hartford was that the state legislature was still licking its wounds from the patriots pulling out of that deal, certainly because the legislature was ballking about it. Pratt and Whitney then, smartly, offered us property that they couldn't develop due to environmental cleanup concerns. The legislature jumped on it and now we have a stadium that's awkwardly located a half hour off-campus. I'm not saying that building on campus is a sure thing, and you can make a good argument for just upgrading the rent, which, as I've often said is a great place to watch a football game, but, the mythology that we need to build a super highway to stores, or that Mansfield residence somehow hold sway over the state legislature is silly, when looked at with any serious scrutiny. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,614

Messages: 4,403,567

Members: 10,216

Latest member: Peter8122