it wasn't stupid for A&M to expand because the stadium was a dump and then needed a complete overhaul of their suite situation. they were leaving tons of money on the table. even if it rarely gets filled up (and that will be the norm, just like everywhere else as live attendance continues to fall off a cliff) they had to raze the old structure

but to go bigger just to close in a bowl, just to make it the biggest stadium in the country. well, you just aren't paying attention to how the crowds are dwindling. and it has very little to do with performance.

tu's bureaucratic nightmare with their new arena is eerily similar to ours in the 1990's when we were trying to get Reed Arena and the Student Rec Center built. Reed was supposed to be a palatial arena with seating to 20k, configured as an upper and lower bowl, with suites. And we had the money to build it. Instead, it was approved as the dump it is. It was a dated facility the minute it opened. The situation in Austin reminds me of that, even though it has different causes.

Let's not ever lose sight of the fact that tu has a well financed commitment to athletic excellence. Their pockets have always been deeper than ours, and they have much more of a winning tradition than we do. They got arrogant and greedy in the late 2000's, and it destroyed their fiefdom. They are paying the price right now, but make no mistake, the commitment is still there.

It's too bad we that haven't been better at capitalizing on their bad fortune.

And that makes you wonder if they will build an arena somewhere "off campus," and how that will affect their program. True, many urban schools play at facilities away from campus, but it is a different dynamic at an urban northeast, private school than it is at a large state school in the south.

They do haz it, it's just real expensive.

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

And that makes you wonder if they will build an arena somewhere "off campus," and how that will affect their program. True, many urban schools play at facilities away from campus, but it is a different dynamic at an urban northeast, private school than it is at a large state school in the south.

---

It will make a difference in attendance if it winds up being off-off campus.

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

They do haz it, it's just real expensive.

---

Not on campus, they don't. The Frank Erwin Center for Entertainment and Sports (F.E.C.E.S) will be torn down to make room for the medical school. Parking is already a nightmare and the other land available on campus are primarily parking facilities.

---

I understand that. If they want to expand, they would have to purchase land around campus that is privately held. That's not cheap.

I've always thought the FEC was a good facility. It may need to be mondernized, but there is nothing wrong with that building. Building that medical center elsewhere is is probably their best bet.

As far as parking, where the hell is there parking for anything in Austin?

But again, I don't have a dog in this fight.!

They are a "Land Can't" university.

Far away sip facilities need more parking; they barely have space for tailgating.
They have to ride a bus to their practice field, which is under a freeway.

A&M's sports complex shares a common parking area for all seasonal sports.
Soon we'll have a lake at Spence Park they cannot copy.

Quote:

---

I understand that. If they want to expand, they would have to purchase land around campus that is privately held. That's not cheap.

---

Or owned by the state. Bigger problem.

Isn't their tennis court land in a historic MLK neighborhood that isn't happy about it?

You guys could not be any dumber

It was a 5 year pledge that started 5 years ago

90% of the pledged money is already in your Daddy A&Ms bank account

360 million last time I saw the report

Last AD put their finances on blast, egos couldn't handle the truth. Whorn's got to keep it in the family, only way to perpetuate the revenue title.

I want to point out that the sip side of the cotton bowl is 40% crimson

Wait ... I saw Herman get boomeranged with a sledgehammer while knocking out lockers. Sip Capital campaign right there.

aggiehawg said:

---

Bottlehead90 said:

---

Not if you can get the city of Austin to pay for it.

---

DING! DING! DING! Same as their medical school, they want the taxpayers to pay for it. Glad I am finally out of that tax-for-everything hellhole.

---

Just be glad you aren't in Seattle. Paid nearly $400 for my car registration this year

"the 12th Man Foundation is not subsidized by taxes."

Your football stadium is, though. Please try to keep up without muddying the waters.

Longhorns get tax money for athletics construction -- BAD, they are poor, guffaw.

Aggies get the same thing: GOOD, smart, financial prowess, smug.

DOG XO 84 said:

---

Besides, TCU didn't pay cash. There is a website that lists all bonds by state and private schools. I looked up TCU and they issued a lot of bonds for their stadium re-do. Definitely "did not pay cash"

---

Ok. Whatever you say, chief.

"Immediately following the last home game of the 2011 season, TCU began demolition on the east side of the Amon G. Carter Stadium. Ninety-five donors contributed over $164 million dollars to have the stadium renovated, exceeding the original goal of $105 million. The overage allowed for work to be completed to the east side of the stadium before TCU's debut in the Big 12 Conference this year."

http://www.texasbomanite.com/CaseStudy-Print.aspx?id=28

Aggie304 said:

---

You guys could not be any dumber

It was a 5 year pledge that started 5 years ago

90% of the pledged money is already in your Daddy A&Ms bank account

360 million last time I saw the report

---

Know how I know you are lying? Only $125 million comes from 12th Man pledges.

$75 million comes from a 30-year student fee ($75 million over the 30-year bond term).

Five percent of the total comes from the 30-year hotel tax.

About half of the total will be paid my seat licenses, spread over many years, probably 30 years, reflecting the bond term.

So as you can see, only about a third is paid by 12th Man pledges which may or may not be in your maroon piggy bank. I'm guessing "not."

Know how I know you are lying (again), Old Sarge? The most high profile lawsuit plaintiff over the Kyle Field reseating had to pay $360,000 over a seat license term of (wait for it) 15 years.

Obsession noted

Well? All of this information is readily available.

But we paid cash!

(No you did not)

Errr, Only dumbasses pay cash!

(Later still...)

We have all the money in the bank! I've seen the report!

(Well, most of the payoff is spread over many years)

Ummm, The seat licenses are only five years!

I'm guessing that all the Aggies who are paying personal seat licenses attached to their seats are overjoyed their five-year commitment has been completed (sarcasm).

I am exstatic that my seat licenses are paid, and I only have a donation now. And yes they were to be paid in 5 years.

"Brunner, who attended Texas A&M in the 1980s and became the first student endowed donor, initially purchased seats on the second deck near the 15 yard line for at least $30,000. But under the new seating plan, she would have had to pay an additional $40,000 over the next 15 years to hold on to the seats, the lawsuit states."

I did notice that the $232 million in seat licensing was "expected" (your administration's term) to be raised in five years.

This lady's was over 15 years.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/article26109187.html#storylink=cpy

"The lawsuit says the 12th Man Foundation in 2013 announced Redevelopment and Reseating Plans requiring, in York's case, payments of $45,000 per seat for the next 15 years."

https://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/mar/17/lawsuit-aggie-donors-preferred-stadium-seats-parki/

The plaintiffs seat location was replaced by a suite

Only suites, which only represents a very small amount of the capital campaign were allowed 15

Almost all of the licenses were fully due in 5 years

Again, you're a dumbass

etexorange said:

---

"the 12th Man Foundation is not subsidized by taxes."

Your football stadium is, though. Please try to keep up without muddying the waters.

Longhorns get tax money for athletics construction -- BAD, they are poor, guffaw.

Aggies get the same thing: GOOD, smart, financial prowess, smug.

---

by what taxes? The local hotel tax? The tax that is in place because the relationship is mutually beneficial? Larger stadium = More revenue for hotels.

Aggie304 said:

---

The plaintiffs seat location was replaced by a suite

Only suites, which only represents a very small amount of the capital campaign were allowed 15

Almost all of the licenses were fully due in 5 years

Again, you're a dumbass

---

So they were suing to keep the suite, but not their old seats?

That doesn't make sense. At all.

etexorange said:

---

Aggie304 said:

---

The plaintiffs seat location was replaced by a suite

Only suites, which only represents a very small amount of the capital campaign were allowed 15

Almost all of the licenses were fully due in 5 years

Again, you're a dumbass

---

So they were suing to keep the suite, but not their old seats?

That doesn't make sense. At all.

---

They were suing saying they had a lifetime contract to view the field from that exact spot. Even though the regular seats in that spot were going away and being replaced by a luxury suite. They were offered very nice seats in another spot. Most saw it as a silly endeavor.

Neither story mentions a suite or an offer of one.

One article refers to the suit as "holding on to their seats."

The other states: "The trio asked Gilstrap to award them the stadium seats they have with no extra charge, provide priority parking at no additional charge and provide similar action regarding parking spots, among other things."

Your pile of BS just gets taller and taller.