PICTURES!! Norwood Teague Unveils Gophers Master Facilities Plan

Donate To GopherHole
GopherHole Staff

GopherHole Staff

GopherHole Admin
Staff member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
5,172
Reaction score
1,386
Points
113
Gophers AD Norwood Teague unveiled an ambitious, bold and aggressive Master Facilities Plan Wednesday afternoon in front of the University's Board of Regents. The $190 million dollar Phase One initiative is designed to be a "Gopher athlete village" and is reportedly going to be privately funded.

For pictures of the renderings:

http://www.gopherhole.com/news_article/show/270250?referrer_id=
 

Hot damn, $190m, privately funded? Aggressive, I like it. Can't wait to see more renderings and hear about real progress.
 

How much will the other phases cost? This had better not cost the taxpayers money!
 

Looks like a workable plan. The Regents appeared to buy into it, which is the critical part.
 

Eagan said:
How much will the other phases cost? This had better not cost the taxpayers money!
Click to expand...

Why not? The taxpayers are already giving a guy from New Jersey 500 mill for a new football field. Can't we just charge the smokers a little more?
 


Does anyone remember how much private money we raised for TCF Bank Stadium?

Go Gophers!!
 


RailBaronYarr said:
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/08/24/smallb3.html?page=all

Not sure what the personal contribution was, but the U's share of financing the ~$300M TCF Bank was only 48%. And it seemed like we had a hard time hitting that goal (they got to 80% of their part and then really struggled at the end). I wonder how easily they'll be able to get $190M just a few years later...
Click to expand...

That's my fear. In the grand scheme of things, we struggled to meet private fundraising goals and that was for a brand new, game-used, outdoor, on-campus football stadium. I don't see how we can expect to raise more than a football stadium for a series of practice facilities/student used centers (academic, nutrition, etc.). It's a lot sexier for corporations, big money donors, etc. to give to a stadium.

We'll get our fair share of big donors, but I'd be shocked if we can come close to $190MM in private donations to fund this. I hope I'm wrong.

Go Gophers!!
 





BleedGopher said:
That's my fear. In the grand scheme of things, we struggled to meet private fundraising goals and that was for a brand new, game-used, outdoor, on-campus football stadium. I don't see how we can expect to raise more than a football stadium for a series of practice facilities/student used centers (academic, nutrition, etc.). It's a lot sexier for corporations, big money donors, etc. to give to a stadium.

We'll get our fair share of big donors, but I'd be shocked if we can come close to $190MM in private donations to fund this. I hope I'm wrong.

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Really solid concerns, and while they are valid concerns, lets also not forget who we have running this ship (Kaler and Norwood) versus the last time around (Bruinicks and Maturi). Norwood has been hailed as a great fundraiser. Let him work his magic and in a few years lets see where the $$ is at for this project.
 

BleedGopher said:
That's my fear. In the grand scheme of things, we struggled to meet private fundraising goals and that was for a brand new, game-used, outdoor, on-campus football stadium. I don't see how we can expect to raise more than a football stadium for a series of practice facilities/student used centers (academic, nutrition, etc.). It's a lot sexier for corporations, big money donors, etc. to give to a stadium.

We'll get our fair share of big donors, but I'd be shocked if we can come close to $190MM in private donations to fund this. I hope I'm wrong.

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that "private funding" is more than just donations, though that's obviously the preferred source. There's also University-issued bonds to be paid back by ticket/TV/merchandising revenue. (Note to Eagan, don't worry, that's not taxpayer money).

Now on the tax funding issue, I personally don't have a problem with some state bonding for U facilities as long as they aren't exclusively used by athletics. If they benefit students more broadly than just athletes, then I think it's justifiable for the state to play a role in limited circumstances (just as the state sometimes bonds for portions of the costs of other U facilities). These practice facilities, though, would seem to fall into the realm of being dedicated solely to student athletes and the U ought not to seek state funds for them.
 

BleedGopher said:
That's my fear. In the grand scheme of things, we struggled to meet private fundraising goals and that was for a brand new, game-used, outdoor, on-campus football stadium. I don't see how we can expect to raise more than a football stadium for a series of practice facilities/student used centers (academic, nutrition, etc.). It's a lot sexier for corporations, big money donors, etc. to give to a stadium.

We'll get our fair share of big donors, but I'd be shocked if we can come close to $190MM in private donations to fund this. I hope I'm wrong.

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Well, one thing working in our favor is that we don't have Joel Maturi out there trying to raise money. Another plus that will help sell this is that it's very all-inclusive and doesn't serve to outright alienate certain sports.
 




year of the gopher said:
Keep in mind that "private funding" is more than just donations, though that's obviously the preferred source. There's also University-issued bonds to be paid back by ticket/TV/merchandising revenue. (Note to Eagan, don't worry, that's not taxpayer money).

Now on the tax funding issue, I personally don't have a problem with some state bonding for U facilities as long as they aren't exclusively used by athletics. If they benefit students more broadly than just athletes, then I think it's justifiable for the state to play a role in limited circumstances (just as the state sometimes bonds for portions of the costs of other U facilities). These practice facilities, though, would seem to fall into the realm of being dedicated solely to student athletes and the U ought not to seek state funds for them.
Click to expand...

I'm confused how University-issued bonding being paid back by TV/ticket/merch revenue is at all tied to these facilities. Does putting this set of facilities bring in additional revenue in those categories that can then pay themselves off?

The other thing to note is this: while from a marketing/branding/support position setting this huge thing as one vision is great because it shows commitment and along-term vision, it also means that we're on the hook to do it all or basically none. Demolish the track and you've got to build a new one. Etc etc. If we start one piece of this, and they're all interdependent on each other and the 8-year vision, but we don't have funding in place, that's a mistake, IMO.

It's similar to the Saints ballpark in St Paul. They're literally about to start digging when the city is something like $8M short of their funding source. But hey, they've got the plan and I'm sure they'll figure it out, right?? If that happens with this it would be a major setback to the U and AD's credibility to the general public.
 

So how many wins per season is this going to generate for football?
 

As the enviornment changes, the money will come

As Kill continues to bring in good recruits and changes the environment of Gopher Football, and Basketball does the same. It is my belief that the money will come. Remember a few years ago North Dakota was doing well for their conference and still are for that matter. As a result it brought in dollars for different programs. We will do the same I believe.
 

#2Gopher said:
As Kill continues to bring in good recruits and changes the environment of Gopher Football, and Basketball does the same. It is my belief that the money will come. Remember a few years ago North Dakota was doing well for their conference and still are for that matter. As a result it brought in dollars for different programs. We will do the same I believe.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean North Dakota State?
 

I have to believe that a big part of this is that add'l money that will come from the new TV contract. Because this encompasses so many sports, fund raising for each component gives many naming rights opportunities for booster of various programs. May only be $50k donations, but they add up.

We could also take the alcohol money towards this. We have already seen a increase in football revenue from enhanced alcohol sales (and a great home schedule this year) with a sell out of the suits at TCF.

I would also think that they could get donations for the academic center, like the Target.com Academic Development Center. I am sure Teague is going to leave no stone unturned...I expect a call any day looking for my $100 check to name a brick. I think I will call him George. : )
 

The outdoor track is nothing. It's barely used right now. It is in terrible shape and never has meets. The outdoor track season is similar to Gopher baseball at Siebert.

Looking at the layout this is how I see it phased:
1. Tear out track and build the football, Olympic indoor, and bb practice facility.
2. Tear down existing football indoor practice building.
3. Build training tables and other uses that would go where indoor FB facility was.

Bam. Done.
 

One thing that this report is missing that I'm a little disappointed with is that it really isn't a full comprehensive plan for the athletic department. It's just focused on the Bierman and student athlete side of the long range plan. They need to include the needs and wants for Williams, Mariucci, and TCF Bank as well. Don't get me wrong, the U is 40 years behind in their practice facilities but a comprehensive plan is a comprehensive plan. Put all the cards on the table. A wish list is a wish list.
 

GoGophers2005 said:
One thing that this report is missing that I'm a little disappointed with is that it really isn't a full comprehensive plan for the athletic department. It's just focused on the Bierman and student athlete side of the long range plan. They need to include the needs and wants for Williams, Mariucci, and TCF Bank as well. Don't get me wrong, the U is 40 years behind in their practice facilities but a comprehensive plan is a comprehensive plan. Put all the cards on the table. A wish list is a wish list.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's why they called this "Phase 1?"
 

Teague mentioned that Northwestern has raised 50 million of their over 200 million plan in the first six months. Hope the donation feasibility study goes good.
 

I can't imagine Teague would announce a plan with a price tag like this without having some plan for funding it/some donors already in place. Not announcing how much he may have already raised, how or who he plans to have pay the rest is a pretty obvious play. Trust in Teague.
 

RailBaronYarr said:
I'm confused how University-issued bonding being paid back by TV/ticket/merch revenue is at all tied to these facilities. Does putting this set of facilities bring in additional revenue in those categories that can then pay themselves off?

The other thing to note is this: while from a marketing/branding/support position setting this huge thing as one vision is great because it shows commitment and along-term vision, it also means that we're on the hook to do it all or basically none. Demolish the track and you've got to build a new one. Etc etc. If we start one piece of this, and they're all interdependent on each other and the 8-year vision, but we don't have funding in place, that's a mistake, IMO.

It's similar to the Saints ballpark in St Paul. They're literally about to start digging when the city is something like $8M short of their funding source. But hey, they've got the plan and I'm sure they'll figure it out, right?? If that happens with this it would be a major setback to the U and AD's credibility to the general public.
Click to expand...

I NEVER said that these facilities will bring in new revenue. However, the Big Ten's new TV deal will be coming soon. Those are new dollars that will be spent in athletics one way or another. All I'm saying is part of those funds could be used to finance University-issued debt on the portion of the plan that can't be filled with fundraising if there is one.
 

gophergrad said:
I can't imagine Teague would announce a plan with a price tag like this without having some plan for funding it/some donors already in place. Not announcing how much he may have already raised, how or who he plans to have pay the rest is a pretty obvious play. Trust in Teague.
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it, and there's more that went virtually unnoticed. Richard Beeson was named new Chair of the board of Regents, Dean Johnson vice-Chair. They are from different sides of the aisle, but are major, major supporters of Gopher football. I imagine part of the discord in this election was the Atlhletic Department supporters versus those vestiges of the "hate the AD no matter what" crowd. This was a big, big deal. Kaler got his guys in power on the board.

Teague has the votes, which is almost as important as the dough.
 

highwayman said:
I think you nailed it, and there's more that went virtually unnoticed. Richard Beeson was named new Chair of the board of Regents, Dean Johnson vice-Chair. They are from different sides of the aisle, but are major, major supporters of Gopher football. I imagine part of the discord in this election was the Atlhletic Department supporters versus those vestiges of the "hate the AD no matter what" crowd. This was a big, big deal. Kaler got his guys in power on the board.

Teague has the votes, which is almost as important as the dough.
Click to expand...

Good call. Watching the stream of this yesterday I was floored by the positive reaction from the BoR. Things are starting to change.
 

GopherHole Staff said:
Gophers AD Norwood Teague unveiled an ambitious, bold and aggressive Master Facilities Plan Wednesday afternoon in front of the University's Board of Regents. The $190 million dollar Phase One initiative is designed to be a "Gopher athlete village" and is reportedly going to be privately funded.

For pictures of the renderings:

http://www.gopherhole.com/news_article/show/270250?referrer_id=
Click to expand...

AthleticComplex_small.jpeg


What is this, an athletic complex for ants?

xdaREQb.gif


The images on OP's link are a bit small, but larger ones can be found here: http://www.gophersports.com/view.gal?id=144297

I'd say $190mm is well within reason for a school of your size and stature (highly ranked academically, successful graduates). We've spent about $150-200mm on athletic facilities and $400+mm on academic and student facilities over the past decade and are about to tackle a $450mm stadium project. Our upcoming development campaign is rumored to be upwards of a billion - one of the most aggressive fundraising campaigns for a university ever. Y'all will hit $200mm no problem.
 


TexasAggie11 said:
AthleticComplex_small.jpeg


What is this, an athletic complex for ants?

xdaREQb.gif


The images on OP's link are a bit small, but larger ones can be found here: http://www.gophersports.com/view.gal?id=144297

I'd say $190mm is well within reason for a school of your size and stature (highly ranked academically, successful graduates). We've spent about $150-200mm on athletic facilities and $400+mm on academic and student facilities over the past decade and are about to tackle a $450mm stadium project. Our upcoming development campaign is rumored to be upwards of a billion - one of the most aggressive fundraising campaigns for a university ever. Y'all will hit $200mm no problem.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA! Nicely done on the Zoolander reference Aggie! It needs to be at least...three times this size. :clap: :clap: :clap:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom