On Campus Arena

[courtside]

Biggest thing I would like to see is more students at games. This falls squarely on Soderberg and Levick. It is first and formeost the place to start...then do your homework and go to other places and see the atmosphere, the sound systems, everything else that goes into the event, It should be an event, win or lose, where people are highly entertained. Soderberg seems to be having enough trouble winning ball games, and scoring 70 points. Part of Levick's job is to get more students at games, period.

[kappy96]

From what I have heard, the University really has no choice but to break ground in 2006 because waiting any longer will just increase the total cost (construction costs, materials) so I hope that proves to be the case. I think the fundraising process has improved tremendously since CL came on board, efforts are much more visable anyway. I hold to the belief that Biondi really just doesn't put athletics too high on his priority list. I think he would much rather get that research facility built than the arena. I realize that facility will bring in $$ as well, but I can't help but feel that he just refuses to see the monetary benefity of an on-campus arena. If he wants to make Saint Louis Univeristy the model Jesuit institution, having a top flight atheltic program will do more to raise the public awareness than most anything. Had anyone even heard of Gonzaga before their basketball program took off?

[GOSLU68]

This was a league game in what you would think would be a hostile pit

with seating capacity of only 5300.

Air Force overcame a small run a the start and shot 55% from the 3 pt arc and used two forwards and little time from a true center. The starters were 21 of 22 free throw shooters as well.

To get to the point: the fan base actually cheered. The student section must have been skiing; there were no more than we get in the Blue Crew section. For on a Saturday afternoon where a $10 ticket got

me a corner seat 30 rows from the bottom i have to say we have a better facility at the Savvis. They did have a separate facility for ice hockey under the same roof seating less than 3000 and it doubles as a football practice field when hockey is not in season. So the players did not get the cold floor experience of the Savvis. Strange

that hockey on Saturday night was a free ticket with your basketbll stub. They actually had lots of family attendance. Millitary or local

there were lots of kids at the game. Maybe in the big city we think

we need Saturday night games and maybe that iss the difference in attendance. They are not selling out 5300 capacity. We had no trouble buying ticxkets online day of game. 4000 showed up.

For a team with a former NBA assistant coach as head coach and a town

Colorado Springs with lots of military suppliers and sorporate headquarters and population of 500,000 they only turned out about 4000

fans. This league has UNLV, New Mexico State, BYU, Utah, Colorado State and some others; they do get an automatic NCAA bid each year.

They did make some interesting free concessions for season ticket holders. Because of the possibility of cold weather season ticket holders got a fast lane for parking and a closer parking lot and a closer door to enter the first door from the outside. parking is free

for all attendees. The areas of seating where the better seats are

were also the only areas that were chosen for game day premiums and tee shirt throws or whatever from the cheer leaders. They did not

run promos giving the cheap ticket people a chance to sit up front.

Point being if we are going to pay for premium seats and give money for bricks and Billiken Club memberships then we should be treated like that is appreciated-every game.

I must admit line of site, the clock, sideline seating are all better

at the Savvis and a much smaller arena does not mean feeling more connected to the game unless it the building is conducive to watching the game; concrete walls will give you noise; but hafing a mezzanine

walkway at 20 rows is stupid and distracting.

[courtside]

Well...how far back are we going? I would say when John Stockton played there... under Dan Fitzgerald....Fitzgerad, also responsible for grooming Monson and Few to great success there. So...I would say early 1980's or a bit after for me...to pay them attention. so, a couple of decades.

[Taj79]

.... a couple of nights with an extra one or two thousand folks in the house, or going yeay-after-year (oKay, more times than not .. say 6 or 7 out of every ten years) to the NCAA's. The Big Dance. The pot o' gold at the end of the collegiate rainbow? This is where the basketball program in my book becomes the horse of the overall program and makes its money to support all things athletic.

The ladies won't ever bring in that revenue. And if that's the case, and an on-campus venue adds to the pit atmosphere leading to always winning at home --- my sign of an above average team --- then does that not increase the chances of getting into the pot o' gold sweepstakes on a yearly basis more achievable? That to me is sustainable growth and why I've always seen an on-campus venue as a must. You ain't gonna do it in a nickle-and-dime night, you're gonna do it over time and in a long-term investment. I frankly don't care the size ... if we get THAT good, maybe the Savvis will want a game and throw money our way to move a big one in there. Or the dome. But that's for a road not yet traveled.

We hae to build it first, then use it properly, maintain that home court and then reap the benefits. More wins = better recruits = sustainable growth = long term, Top 50 program. Size don't matter. Exhibit One ... Cameron Indoor Stadium.

[cheeseman]

David, the arena will be paid for with bonds which has nothing to do with operating costs of the AD program. The savings from a smaller arena will not equate out equally - in other words, cutting the size by 1/3 seats will not cut the cost by 1/3. The infrastructure costs will be the same and the overall savings will be basically the cost of the materials. Labor will be about the same - if you have built a structure that is 4x8 or 8x16 you would know that it takes about the same about of time and labor to do both. I realize the example is small but it does kind of make my point. I believe we can fill the arena easily for 1/4 of our games - that would be 4-5 games and that would equate to about $180,000 - $225,000 more money for the AD program. Will we fill the arena the first year at that level - not sure but very possible by the time it is built. If we continue our success then we could easily fill it for 1/2 of the games - thus creating an increase of revenue of between $350,000 to $450,000. I use a $15 average tix and concession number to reach these figures - by the way, I really think the $15 is a low figure.

Kappy, Biondi is supporting the arena - he always said the research facility was first. Nothing wrong with him prioritizing his projects.

[billikenmetz]

I don't want to hear anymore damn talk about the arena until I see shovel hitting dirt.

[davidnark]

>David, the arena will be paid for with bonds which has

>nothing to do with operating costs of the AD program.

I worked on bond transactions for several years. The size of the bond issuance and uses of funds will be determined specifically by the overall cost of the arena (not be the AD program). The bonds will be paid off with revenue generated from the arena (probably over a 23 year period to corresond with the TIF Bonds or notes). I appreciate that there is not a perfect correlation between the cost of the arena and the number of seats; however, it will undboutedly be more expensive to add 3,000 extra seats, which will require extra materials, extra labor, a larger building footprint, extra restrooms, etc. It therefore doesn't make good financial sense to increase the size of the arena (and therefore the size of the bond issuance) unless the extra seats can generate enough revenue to cover the extra costs over the repayment schedule.

[cheeseman]

We are not disagreeing on your financial analysis but on if SLU can fill the seats enough to make it worthwhile to keep the additional seats currently in the plans. You say no - I say yes. It is always easier to borrow $ and pay it off in the long term then to try to increase revenue to be used as a pay as you go albeit the year to year operation of the AD overall program which would benefit from the additional funds the extra seats would produce.

[billiken_roy]

it is my opinion that the real issue is getting financing approved. that apparently hasnt happened and wont until slu has the needed "down payment" which will be gathered from the fund raising. apparently 50% financing is about all we can get, thus the needed $35m goal of the projected $70m cost. now add to it cheryl wanting to get offices and practice facilities added, i am betting the lender says "fine, either pay cash for the upgrades or something has to be taken out of the costs?" i.e. we come back to cutting costs.

if slu was paying cash for the whole deal, or if they had financing approved for a bigger deal, this wouldnt be an issue as it would seem to me the prospects for additional revenue would make sense.

[willie]

Financing is not an issue. SLU can sell revenue bonds on the project anytime they want. It would cost them about 4.75% to issue 30 year muni debt. Several underwriters were lined up a long time ago.