Let the OCS MEGA-THREAD begin!

[Sellular1]

They've been very open about the search process. What if they find that they don't want to do it?

People will continue and continue to ask about it even after it is "settled".

Bull Daly will have to be put on suicide watch.

 

It would be the death of USF football if they never get an OCS. I just dont see how it could survive without one with the cost of playing in RJS. We just cant draw enough fans to keep on paying rent for RJS. And you can bet that the new contract with Glazers wont be good for USF. So I am pretty sure that Harlan will see this and know that USF will need an OCS just to survive and keep up.

 

 

RayJay = around $1 million per year

OCS = around $1 million per month

 

Everyone who has ever bought a home knows it's always cheaper to rent.

 

Look, there are dozens of reasons why an OCS would be better than RayJay, but cost will never be one of them.

Long term always makes sense to buy rather then rent, once you're certain what you want.

 

BETTER ?   Hell yes.

 

CHEAPER?  Hell no.

 

I was living in a 1 bedroom in Harbour Island and was paying $1,300 a month w/everything included. I bought a 3 bed/3 bath house in the beginning of the year in Brandon/Riverview, 10 minutes away from downtown and pay considerably less a month now.

The point is, once an exact same place is agreed upon it is better to buy it than rent it. Can't compare your apples to oranges.

[charsibb]

All other things being equal, it's always going to be cheaper to buy than rent, if you intend to use something for its entire life cycle

 

Why?

 

Simple, when renting you have to pay a profit to the owner. When owning, that money can be used for other purposes.

[BDYZR]

All other things being equal, it's always going to be cheaper to buy than rent, if you intend to use something for its entire life cycle

 

Why?

 

Simple, when renting you have to pay a profit to the owner. When owning, that money can be used for other purposes.

Agree. When renting you have nothing.

What could USF, or any tenant for that matter, do when the owner decides to raise the rent? Decides to rent to someone else? Doesn't make needed repairs? (Citrus Bowl comes to mind) 

[slick1ru2]

All other things being equal, it's always going to be cheaper to buy than rent, if you intend to use something for its entire life cycle

 

Why?

 

Simple, when renting you have to pay a profit to the owner. When owning, that money can be used for other purposes.

You're confusing residential and commercial property.

Companies often lease office space, they don't buy buildings. And when they buy buildings, they can find themselves in serious financial trouble. I worked for two medical practices that got into financial trouble over buying vs leasing. Both eventually went out of business trying to pay enormous liens.

You also ignored upkeep and repair costs which can be substantial over time.

I doubt any school listed cost savings as a reason to build a stadium.

[Danm1983]

Too bad they can't renegotiate and lower the rent and consider the upper bowl invisible. I have to imagine not having more people (yes, I know many are volunteers) and security in the 3rd levels would help a little bit, and having 41,441 capacity is about what USF would need in an OCS - would almost give them a sample capacity to do a study on. If the team returned to winning and the stadium only held 41K, they could really see how often they could pack it (I would also change the student section from 12,501 down to say, 8,000 or whatever fits along the lower 100 sections, and keep the band in the middle of them to free up that north east corner section). Even if they didn't lower the rent, I'd love to see that as an experiment next year to see how fans react and if the atmosphere improves (granted, the team has to win and bring in more fans).

 

Edit - perhaps an agreement could be in place to have upper bowls available for the FSU game coming up, otherwise I don't think they'd need to expand for any games (possibly the UCF game in 2016 if USF is drawing fans to fill the lower bowl).

Edited December 16, 2014 by Danm1983

[charsibb]

 

All other things being equal, it's always going to be cheaper to buy than rent, if you intend to use something for its entire life cycle

 

Why?

 

Simple, when renting you have to pay a profit to the owner. When owning, that money can be used for other purposes.

You're confusing residential and commercial property.

Companies often lease office space, they don't buy buildings. And when they buy buildings, they can find themselves in serious financial trouble. I worked for two medical practices that got into financial trouble over buying vs leasing. Both eventually went out of business trying to pay enormous liens.

You also ignored upkeep and repair costs which can be substantial over time.

I doubt any school listed cost savings as a reason to build a stadium.

 

 

 

Perhaps you missed the part of owning it for its lifecycle, perhaps you're not in business.

 

Whether you own or rent, the occupant pays for everything

- maintenance comes out of the rent money

- upkeep comes out of the rent money

- interest on the loan comes out of the rent money

- and profit comes out of the rent money

 

Profit is the only thing a renter has to pay that an owner does not

 

Because no owner is going to willingly lose money on a rented building

 

But, you say, an owner might be willing to lease it at a loss if they're planning to sell it later for a profit.

 

Well, the capital gains that could make that possible would be the same capital gains you could recover if you were the owner.

 

So I'll repeat it, a little more slowly this time - if you plan to use a property for its entire life cycle, it will always be cheaper to own than rent (and yes, 99.9% = always, since you can always find one insignificant example to prove the rule, pun intended.)

[The Great 8]

Absolutes are hard to defend. Signing 5/10 year leases in business is common and a great way to a.) mitigate risk, b.) have cheaper yearly costs than you would owning it.

 

Yes, if you plan to use it for 30+ years, in the long run it's probably cheaper to buy, but that may not matter. If, for example, you're more able to perpetually pay $500/mo, versus $1000/mo for 30 years, many businesses would choose to do the former.

Edited December 17, 2014 by The Great 8

[Sellular1]

Absolutes are hard to defend. Signing 5/10 year leases in business is common and a great way to a.) mitigate risk, b.) have cheaper yearly costs than you would owning it.

 

Yes, if you plan to use it for 30+ years, in the long run it's probably cheaper to buy, but that may not matter. If, for example, you're more able to perpetually pay $500/mo, versus $1000/mo for 30 years, many businesses would choose to do the former.

Plus it shields you from volatility in the real estate market.

[charsibb]

Absolutes are hard to defend. Signing 5/10 year leases in business is common and a great way to a.) mitigate risk, b.) have cheaper yearly costs than you would owning it.

 

Yes, if you plan to use it for 30+ years, in the long run it's probably cheaper to buy, but that may not matter. If, for example, you're more able to perpetually pay $500/mo, versus $1000/mo for 30 years, many businesses would choose to do the former.

 

If we build an OCS, I'm pretty sure we're going to use it for its entire lifecycle, which will be significantly longer than 30 years, I hope.

 

The Yale Bowl turns 100 this year

[Rocky Style]

The yale bowl is pretty cool