Let the OCS MEGA-THREAD begin!

[Sellular1]

Wow, just wow. First lets ear up a few things. They Rays are not going to build a new stadium. The worst part of Tampa where no one from St Pete, Souh Tampa or Lakeland would be interested in driving to.

Also, I an tell none of you have done much or any commercial real estate or development. The mall would cost practically as much as the cost to build a nice stadium. The Claw is on environmentally sensitive land that the state would never allow construction on. MOSI is owned by the community and while that sounds like the best option for off campus, that is also a very long and expensive process.

The best option is an on campus stadium that would be affordable and financable. To do that projected ticket revenue has to be calculated. That would be hard for UCF to do because of the large step down a move would be from Ray jay and the amenities that usf fans are use to.

Freudian slip there brah?

 

Joined right before the USF/UCF game this year too I see? 

 

user name is Karma? 

 

lulz. I smell a troll

And by the way he misspells or omits letters in every other word...

[BDYZR]

Heard on the news last night that Jeff Vinick and crew have a $1,000,000,000.00 plan for downtown Tampa... And ZERO plans for a stadium in that.

 

I think, politically, that it will be extremely difficult to get an OCS any time soon. 

[GaUSFBull]

Heard on the news last night that Jeff Vinick and crew have a $1,000,000,000.00 plan for downtown Tampa... And ZERO plans for a stadium in that. I think, politically, that it will be extremely difficult to get an OCS any time soon.

That's great, because the USF campus isn't in downtown Tampa, so a stadium there would be no better than driving to Ray Jay.

[Triple B]

Heard on the news last night that Jeff Vinick and crew have a $1,000,000,000.00 plan for downtown Tampa... And ZERO plans for a stadium in that.

 

I think, politically, that it will be extremely difficult to get an OCS any time soon.

Politics really doesn't come that much into play, if at all, with us building an OCS, does it?

[Hem]

 

Heard on the news last night that Jeff Vinick and crew have a $1,000,000,000.00 plan for downtown Tampa... And ZERO plans for a stadium in that.

 

I think, politically, that it will be extremely difficult to get an OCS any time soon.

Politics really doesn't come that much into play, if at all, with us building an OCS, does it?

 

What the hell does Vinick and Channelside have to do with USF and an OCS? 

 

I'll help. Absolutely nothing. 

Edited December 18, 2014 by Hem

[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.

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 real world is full of significant instances of funding issues and cost overruns with stadiums. You make it sound like an academic problem. It's not.

[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 real world is full of significant instances of funding issues and cost overruns with stadiums. You make it sound like an academic problem. It's not.

 

 

Sure it is, if done right.

 

And far more projects are done right than done wrong. You just hear about the ones done wrong, because they make the news. I'd venture to say that it's on the order of 95-5 done right

 

It's construction, not rocket science. If you hire the right people, you get a project that does what it's supposed to do, without making the papers.

[DELdaBull]

Heard on the news last night that Jeff Vinick and crew have a $1,000,000,000.00 plan for downtown Tampa... And ZERO plans for a stadium in that. I think, politically, that it will be extremely difficult to get an OCS any time soon.

That's great, because the USF campus isn't in downtown Tampa, so a stadium there would be no better than driving to Ray Jay.

Best basketball year ever was played there. Love downtown

[Guest]

 

 

Heard on the news last night that Jeff Vinick and crew have a $1,000,000,000.00 plan for downtown Tampa... And ZERO plans for a stadium in that. I think, politically, that it will be extremely difficult to get an OCS any time soon.

That's great, because the USF campus isn't in downtown Tampa, so a stadium there would be no better than driving to Ray Jay.

Best basketball year ever was played there. Love downtown

 

 

Do you mean sometime in the 1970s at Curtis Hixon Hall ?

 

[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.

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 real world is full of significant instances of funding issues and cost overruns with stadiums. You make it sound like an academic problem. It's not.

 

Sure it is, if done right.

 

And far more projects are done right than done wrong. You just hear about the ones done wrong, because they make the news. I'd venture to say that it's on the order of 95-5 done right

 

It's construction, not rocket science. If you hire the right people, you get a project that does what it's supposed to do, without making the papers.

The guy that got funding and hired the right people has left the building.

Also stadiums don't guarantee butts in seats, like North Texas has found out. Their first season with a new stadium attendance was 98th. The next year they were 103rd. USF doesn't start winning, I can see similar attendance issues.