|
Post by yoteforever on Oct 5, 2013 6:37:15 GMT -6
I'm heading straight from the confines of the Dakota Dome to Frost Arena right after the football game to watch our ladies kick some Rabbit ass. Get out the broom, it looks like a weekend sweep. Go Yotes
|
|
usdlaw
Senior Member
Posts: 930
|
Post by usdlaw on Oct 6, 2013 12:34:22 GMT -6
Congrats on the new stadium and gifts. But I do think it is dangerous to fund most of the project with anticipated revenue streams that may not be there. A couple losing seasons and those revenue streams may not be there. But you do need a new stadium. The bleachers on opposing sidelines are one big lawsuit waiting to happen. Those structures look like they will collapse any day!
|
|
|
Post by gorabbits on Oct 6, 2013 15:04:11 GMT -6
Congrats on the new stadium and gifts. But I do think it is dangerous to fund most of the project with anticipated revenue streams that may not be there. A couple losing seasons and those revenue streams may not be there. But you do need a new stadium. The bleachers on opposing sidelines are one big lawsuit waiting to happen. Those structures look like they will collapse any day! Thanks for the congratulations. As for the concern for about revenue streams, I think you will see that most of the revenue streams will be locked in for years to come in rather short order. Sioux Falls has shown what can be done with boxes,etc at the new events center. Brookings has numerous businesses that will be willing to lock in long term commitments as will a number of Sioux Falls and state wide businesses. I won't be surprised to see a drive to guarantee season tickets purchases for several years in to the future as well. You know that as conservative as the BOR is, they won't allow a financial arrangement that would put SDSU at risk.
|
|
|
Post by newtousd33 on Oct 7, 2013 7:36:03 GMT -6
Isn't that how we are funding the arena...with bonding paid back over time?
Just interesting that someone here would question SDSU doing the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by azsod73 on Oct 7, 2013 8:31:18 GMT -6
I think there is a bit of a difference in funding sources. I believe the USD plan is to have about 80% in donor gifts/pledges and the balance coming from operational revenues. SDSU's plan may be just the opposite. Early reports indicated SDSU planned to have $15 million in gifts/pledges with the balance of the $65 million coming from annual operations/luxury boxes etc. Not sure if the recent Sanford-Dykhouse contributions are included in the initial $15 million or added to that number.
USD will have to bond/borrow X number of dollars to cover the time needed to collect pledges (Sanford's pledge is over 20 years) and the operational revenue streams. USD's plan includes about $10 million in traditional educational building funding (State bonding?) for the connector building.
All and all, I support SDSU's willingness to stretch a bit to make a good thing happen.
|
|
|
Post by gorabbits on Oct 7, 2013 16:00:53 GMT -6
My understanding (and I am not on the inside on this project) is that the plan proposed is up to $50,000,000 in bonding for the $60-$65,000,000 project, leaving $10-$15,000,000 in donations needed. The $12,500,000 announced on Saturday basically covers the donation portion. Additional fundraising will certainly be pursued, but SDSU has a financial plan that is sound in place to cover the bonding if the full $50.000,000 is needed. Additional donations will reduce the annual bonding payment by $75,000 for each $1,000,000 raised in donations. So there shouldn't be a limitation in going forward unless something unforeseen comes up. The Regents have been well informed on the process and the initial donation and naming.
|
|
usdlaw
Senior Member
Posts: 930
|
Post by usdlaw on Oct 7, 2013 21:49:28 GMT -6
Isn't that how we are funding the arena...with bonding paid back over time? Just interesting that someone here would question SDSU doing the same thing. There is significant difference in funding. Azsod73 has it mostly. Ours is mostly funded with pledges and secured by Foundation until rest is raised...but hey maybe we can get a few dollars out of T Denny too and we will have all money raised! Have to assume an ask is being made now.
|
|
jackjd
Senior Member
Posts: 655
|
Post by jackjd on Oct 9, 2013 23:11:03 GMT -6
I think Azsod73's explanation is pretty accurate. Both projects will use funds raised from the sale of bonds by the SD Building Authority. The Regents require proof of how the bonds will be repaid. The repayment sources presented for the two projects are different. The Board of Regents website has a lot of information about both projects. One can search meeting agendas and the documents presented at meetings. The current meeting agenda -- the meeting started 10/8 and runs through tomorrow, 10/10 -- includes details about the SDSU stadium project. Today the Regents gave the green light so it goes to the next stage: presentation of detailed specs etc. at the December Regents meeting with the sale of bonds likely in the Spring. Here's the Regents' website: www.sdbor.edu/
|
|
|
Post by yoteforever on Oct 10, 2013 0:31:46 GMT -6
I think Azsod73's explanation is pretty accurate. Both projects will use funds raised from the sale of bonds by the SD Building Authority. The Regents require proof of how the bonds will be repaid. The repayment sources presented for the two projects are different. The Board of Regents website has a lot of information about both projects. One can search meeting agendas and the documents presented at meetings. The current meeting agenda -- the meeting started 10/8 and runs through tomorrow, 10/10 -- includes details about the SDSU stadium project. Today the Regents gave the green light so it goes to the next stage: presentation of detailed specs etc. at the December Regents meeting with the sale of bonds likely in the Spring. Here's the Regents' website: www.sdbor.edu/ JackJD, congrats on the new stadium, it's long overdue. I also think we will get the nod for the new arena, and Dome renovation. Things in SD are looking up, and both universities are doing what needs to be done to position ourselves favorably for recruits, increased fan base, and increased revenue streams. Both schools need to grow their respective fan bases and let people see that the GAMEDAY experience is a fun time, and spend more Saturdays enjoying college athletics. Again, congrats on the new stadium. Please, please put in turf though. Please.
|
|
jackjd
Senior Member
Posts: 655
|
Post by jackjd on Oct 10, 2013 9:31:00 GMT -6
yoteforever: USD already has 'the nod' (Senate Bill 8 is law -- for those wanting to read the final version: legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2013/Bills/SB8ENR.pdf ) so its just a matter of working through the details and USD will be turning dirt and pouring concrete. I agree completely on your comments about growing respective fan bases etc. And, yes, the SDSU stadium will have turf. It is possible we'll be playing on it in for the 2015 season.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Oct 10, 2013 15:17:28 GMT -6
yoteforever: USD already has 'the nod' (Senate Bill 8 is law -- for those wanting to read the final version: legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2013/Bills/SB8ENR.pdf ) so its just a matter of working through the details and USD will be turning dirt and pouring concrete. I agree completely on your comments about growing respective fan bases etc. And, yes, the SDSU stadium will have turf. It is possible we'll be playing on it in for the 2015 season. Thank the lord turf is being installed, SDSU is the only team in the MVC that doesn't have any turf. The stadium now can be summed up as a pile of mud with a couple of shady grandstands by it. This is definitely something you guys need, and I'm actually kind of surprised it's taken this long.
|
|
|
Post by sd4life on Oct 13, 2013 10:32:28 GMT -6
Good for SDSU that T. Denny gave you some money for a new field, but watch out. Money he gives always comes with strings attached.
|
|
jackjd
Senior Member
Posts: 655
|
Post by jackjd on Oct 13, 2013 11:34:35 GMT -6
Not sure what you're referring to as support for your statement, sd4life, but I'm confident SDSU's administration does not share your concern. Mr. Sanford donated the majority of the funds to build the Dykhouse Center and the Dana Dykhouse family donated the remainder and no strings were attached, express or implied. Mr. Sandord has done some amazing things with his donations including (one of my favorites and an example of taking a great risk for a tremendous public good) saving the Homestake Mine with a $70 million donation which will, in time, do more for the economy of South Dakota than the Homestake did when it was North America's largest gold mine.
|
|
|
Post by azsod73 on Oct 13, 2013 15:55:17 GMT -6
Not sure what you're referring to as support for your statement, sd4life, but I'm confident SDSU's administration does not share your concern. Mr. Sanford donated the majority of the funds to build the Dykhouse Center and the Dana Dykhouse family donated the remainder and no strings were attached, express or implied. Mr. Sandord has done some amazing things with his donations including (one of my favorites and an example of taking a great risk for a tremendous public good) saving the Homestake Mine with a $70 million donation which will, in time, do more for the economy of South Dakota than the Homestake did when it was North America's largest gold mine. I have no concerns with ulterior motives, strings, or anything else, associated with any of T. Denny Sanford's donations. He has made a lot of money and has stated he wants to give it away to worthy causes before he dies. IMHO, that beats putting it into dynasty trusts and the resulting heirs who have no idea how the real world operates.
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Oct 15, 2013 21:31:26 GMT -6
Let's be honest, T Denny makes his money in not the best of ways and these donations sounds like he wants to help, but most of them, if not all of them, are tax writeoffs for him, plain and simple.
|
|