Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="FfldCntyFan, post: 4655283, member: 71"] I'm curious as to how Gampel, in its current state measures up to Cameron in its current state (never been to Cameron). Yes, there are inconveniences associated with Gampel but in other venues, inconveniences can be spun as part of its charm. I fully believe in standard maintenance on all facilities (something that has been seriously lacking on many things throughout the state) but I would like to know a few details about exactly what the $50 million will cover as that is quite a bit of money (not far from what it cost to build recently completed Toscano). Obviously, it was a different world when Gampel was built but even if we were to translate the then cost (IIRC it was publicized as $21 million to the school/state) to today's dollars, that facility has paid for itself ten to fifteen times over. If we were to retire it today it wouldn't owe anyone a penny. I cannot think of a better investment that the school and/or state has made, not only in my lifetime but in the existence of Connecticut as a state. If we were to [B][I]find[/I][/B] the $300 million (high end of the recommendations) to spend, I am very confident (assuming correct project management) that we could have used that money to build both a new Basketball facility (I would love if it seated ~12k) and the hockey facility that was just completed, at a more reasonable capacity (say ~5k). The largest issue would be finding a suitable piece of land (that would not need any extraordinary site work) but beyond that it would have been feasible. Ice rinks normally have additional costs as there is the need for a very expensive refrigeration unit and delivery infrastructure to keep the ice frozen. My guess is if Toscano was built exactly as it was, without this feature, it would have cost $8-$10 million less. Estimating $80-$85 million for a larger capacity Toscano, $150-$170 million for the new basketball facility (considerably larger structure than the ice rink, therefore considerably more concrete) taking into account the economies of scale of two concurrent projects (Q did benefit from their facilities being built as they were) and anywhere between $10-$15 million for sitework, we could have come in under the $300 million with considerable overruns before the sale of naming rights (assuming we could use university owned land). I'm not sure we need a new basketball facility (there is quite a bit of history and (previously mentioned) charm to Gampel and, if Duke and Kansas can play in facilities that are four and three decades older than Gampel, I don't see it's age as an issue. If the school wants to make improvements as a means to squeeze more revenue from the facility, looking into building something new should be a better return on investment than a band aid that will need to be repeated every so often. This is where I really miss having Pudge with us (may he rest in peace), as his would assuredly add in the missed opportunity of bonding a project like this when interest rates were considerably lower. For the purpose of full disclosure have have a pretty good background in this. I've spent the past quarter century of a four decade career as an accounting/finance professional working for major commercial construction companies (first, just shy of a full decade for the largest firm in the field in Westchester county followed by the past near decade and a half for the largest in lower Fairfield county). [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach