PDA

View Full Version : Should expanding McCarthy be considered?



DixieZag
06-13-2013, 02:58 PM
I know this is the epitome of an off-season topic, but seems harmless.

I had heard - but am not sure if it is correct, that the Arena was built specifically so that expansion was possible? If that is the case, should it be considered?

On the yes side, there seems to be lots of people wanting tickets but cannot get past the waiting list - and that is for season tickets, never mind single game tickets.

The natural expansion would be simply finishing seats all the way up on the ends and fill in a bowl, I doubt that would hurt the "feel" - assuming that is possible.

Record string of sell-outs, not sure any game hasn't been, probably keep that record anyway. Women's team sells out big games also, which could further justify cost.

No side - Don't mess with success. Cost. Losing the "feel" of the arena. And obviously, whether it is even logistically possible.

If it's not even physically possible I will delete the thread with dispatch.

Angelo Roncalli
06-13-2013, 03:02 PM
I know this is the epitome of an off-season topic, but seems harmless.

I had heard - but am not sure if it is correct, that the Arena was built specifically so that expansion was possible? If that is the case, should it be considered?

On the yes side, there seems to be lots of people wanting tickets but cannot get past the waiting list - and that is for season tickets, never mind single game tickets.

The natural expansion would be simply finishing seats all the way up on the ends and fill in a bowl, I doubt that would hurt the "feel" - assuming that is possible.

Record string of sell-outs, not sure any game hasn't been, probably keep that record anyway. Women's team sells out big games also, which could further justify cost.

No side - Don't mess with success. Cost. Losing the "feel" of the arena. And obviously, whether it is even logistically possible.

If it's not even physically possible I will delete the thread with dispatch.

No to expansion. The revenue generated by new seats would never cover the cost of the expansion. It's much better to have a waiting list than to have empty seats.

The wish list for the athletic department doesn't include expansion of MAC. The list includes:

1. Construction of the Golf & Tennis Center (this project is underway; it has been paid for by a very generous donation);
2. Campaign for endowed scholarships (creation of an endowment large enough to fully self-fund all possible athletic scholarships; a single endowed scholarship is about $1,000,000. There are 155 scholarships to be paid for);
3. Center for Athletic Achievement (this new building will contain the GU Athletics Hall of Fame; the Student Athlete Academic Support Center; and a 5,000 square foot multi-use event space that will attach to the MAC);
4. Gonzaga Soccer Complex (construction of grandstands, locker rooms, concessions stand, and installation of stadium lights).

bartruff1
06-13-2013, 03:13 PM
It is always best to have more demand than supply...NO..

DixieZag
06-13-2013, 03:19 PM
If it would cost more to build than can be made off of extra seats than it totally is a non-starter. I would assume any such consideration would involve a very sophisticated cost-benefit basis.

Also, I believe we could fill it on season tickets alone, which generally implies donations above ticket cost - might be looked at in the study. If most (by far) of the new seats were season tickets and if any single game wasn't sold out one could always load up a bunch to Fairchild, school districts to raffle . . you get the idea, I think empty seats could be prevented.

I am not even sure I like the idea - I would lean toward "don't mess with a good thing" but I did want to hear what others thought and largely agree with your points, type of thing people might want to kick around, better than kicking each other around.

DixieZag
06-13-2013, 03:20 PM
No to expansion. The revenue generated by new seats would never cover the cost of the expansion. It's much better to have a waiting list than to have empty seats.

The wish list for the athletic department doesn't include expansion of MAC. The list includes:

1. Construction of the Golf & Tennis Center (this project is underway; it has been paid for by a very generous donation);
2. Campaign for endowed scholarships (creation of an endowment large enough to fully self-fund all possible athletic scholarships; a single endowed scholarship is about $1,000,000. There are 155 scholarships to be paid for);
3. Center for Athletic Achievement (this new building will contain the GU Athletics Hall of Fame; the Student Athlete Academic Support Center; and a 5,000 square foot multi-use event space that will attach to the MAC);
4. Gonzaga Soccer Complex (construction of grandstands, locker rooms, concessions stand, and installation of stadium lights).

I wasn't aware of the wish list, I might have wrongly thought that expansion might help pay the wish list. See? I have already learned something, which is good.

webspinnre
06-13-2013, 04:05 PM
Yeah, the biggest thing with any stadium is that the least expensive ticket/seat is usually the most expensive to build. As such, adding on another 1000 seats would cost well more than the first 1000 cost, and would sell for way less than the first 1000 sell for.

roxdoc
06-13-2013, 07:36 PM
This is at least a once-a-year discussion. Alas, it was not designed for any expansion. With a little more foresight we could have at least had the debate pro vs con. Only option is to tear it all down and start again, which of course will never happen. It is what it is.

DixieZag
06-13-2013, 08:08 PM
This is at least a once-a-year discussion. Alas, it was not designed for any expansion. With a little more foresight we could have at least had the debate pro vs con. Only option is to tear it all down and start again, which of course will never happen. It is what it is.

Thanks for answering.

That is unfortunate, though I am sure there is a reason for it and not oversight. It is unfortunate in that even if one was completely opposed to the idea now, it would always be nice to have that option.

TheGonzagaFactor
06-13-2013, 09:07 PM
I had heard - but am not sure if it is correct, that the Arena was built specifically so that expansion was possible? If that is the case, should it be considered?



The Arena (Spokane Arena) can be expanded and is currently undergoing a modest expansion, replacing existing seats with "space saving" seats. It was designed to be open to future expansion if the metal-clad corners next to the video board were replaced with seats.

The MAC isn't expandable, and was obviously a short sighted decision.

I've always thought that we should have big non-conference games in the Spokane Arena. ~3 per year. Good teams (Mich St, Illinois, and even Wake...) have beaten us in the MAC so I don't see what makes the Spokane Arena such a bad idea. Include those games in the season ticket package.

webspinnre
06-13-2013, 09:12 PM
Shortsighted? Did you read what Angelo I posted about the cost of expansion? The way building a stadium works is that the seats the furthest away (and thus the least valuable) are the most expensive to build, and the more you get, the more expensive they get, while becoming progressively less valuable. There was a definite reason for choosing to build as they did, the size they did, based on both projected attendance, and on the relationship between revenue gained and cost of build. There were people far smarter in regards to these things than those of us on the board who were involved.

CDC84
06-13-2013, 09:27 PM
I've always thought that we should have big non-conference games in the Spokane Arena. ~3 per year. Good teams (Mich St, Illinois, and even Wake...) have beaten us in the MAC so I don't see what makes the Spokane Arena such a bad idea.

When GU plays at the Arena, they have to split revenue. At the MAC, they keep it all. Even with 6,000 more people in the stands, GU makes more money by having Michigan State at the MAC than at the Arena. The program needs as many home games at the MAC as possible. The Ronald McDonald Game is enough. I would think that will return this year....they just couldn't fit it in last year due to all of the scheduling contracts they had to finish up. Also, it would be a good idea for the team to experience the Arena at least once since they might play there next March in the NCAA tourney.

KStyles
06-13-2013, 10:01 PM
Both of the threads in the quote below touch on the issue of expansion and have some good information in them.


http://www.guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?t=41677&highlight=capacity

http://www.guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?p=544359#post544359


Taken from: http://www.guboards.com/showthread.php?t=45206

MDABE80
06-13-2013, 10:22 PM
$60 K-$70 K per seat for expansion. Yes the Mac could be expanded but only 800 seats or so....

jazzdelmar
06-14-2013, 03:29 AM
Is the Arena SRO for every Zag game? Thats the best gauge on optimal fan interest and whether a bigger MAC is advisable.

I agree a waiting list at the MAC is preferable and has more cachet than 100s of empty seats vs the bottom of the WCC and the preseason fillers with a larger facility.

LongIslandZagFan
06-14-2013, 05:45 AM
I don't think you guys caught exactly what Angelo said there... the costs to have those seats there (not build those seats) on a yearly basis would be a net loss. In other words the seats would be a drain on the AD... in perpetuity.

J-Lo
06-14-2013, 07:15 AM
From the above linked previous threads on the topic... the below is operating on the financials provided by university officials at the time of construction. Specifically, it cost $25,000,000 to build the MAC, and would have cost $37,000,000 to build an 8,000 seat MAC. The $25MM consumed ALL available capital at the time, which means $12,000,000 would have to have been financed.


Here's some incredibly simplistic math, but it illustrates the point. Assume 2,000 more seats, each selling for $20 for 13 home games and 1,000 more Bulldog Club memberships (1 for every pair of seats) at $200 per year. That generates $720,000 gross revenue a year. Assume you borrow $12,000,000 on a 30 year note at 6%. It will take monthly payments totaling $864,000 a year to pay the mortgage, and that's before you take into account the greater operating costs (heat, lights, staff, etc.) that an 8,000 seat arena would require. That's a revenue shortfall of $150,000 year--without operating costs being figured in. Then there's the matter of what happens if the team becomes a .500 team for a few years and you only sell 6,000 seats a game. You're flipped even worse.

realtydog
06-14-2013, 07:15 AM
AD departments also add facility improvements to help recruiting, perception, etc..... I wonder if the attendance at the soccer field has paid for those improvements---all I'm saying is that there is other value besides what the bean counters can show on paper--having 7,500 vs 6,000 gives the arena more voices and people to impress visitors---also the size (capacity) of the arena you play in is looked at by the media, players, and other fans

webspinnre
06-14-2013, 07:26 AM
That'd be true if you were talking about taking perhaps a one-time loss, or at least breaking even. If you're losing 1-2 million per year on that, it'd better be an awful lot of good publicity/goodwill/whatever other intangible you're talking about. The soccer field work will likely be paid for by donations/sponsors, much like the original MAC was.

realtydog
06-14-2013, 07:44 AM
why was this brought up again?? not going to happen

DixieZag
06-14-2013, 08:22 AM
why was this brought up again?? not going to happen

Because I hadn't seen it before and should have done a search but didn't. I didn't realize that it was a moot point, but I definitely believe the people that have put the numbers up and I learned something new about cost per seat basis.

Could be some discussion about whether more games should be played at the arena but those too seem to lose money for the school.

If the mods want to take this down, I have no problem with that, I should have done a search but very much appreciate the input of those that know the numbers and priorities.

jazzdelmar
06-14-2013, 09:22 AM
Because I hadn't seen it before and should have done a search but didn't. I didn't realize that it was a moot point, but I definitely believe the people that have put the numbers up and I learned something new about cost per seat basis.

Could be some discussion about whether more games should be played at the arena but those too seem to lose money for the school.

If the mods want to take this down, I have no problem with that, I should have done a search but very much appreciate the input of those that know the numbers and priorities.

bad boy, Dix. i liked hearing all the explanations too. at the end of the day i am thinkng the MAC is optimal and enlarging it is not only $$$ but runs the risk of empty seats for lesser foes. nothing worse than that.

MDABE80
06-14-2013, 09:31 AM
Dix my cost per seat was NOT for a new Arena. It's for specifically a retrofit....as an FYI. The Sokane Arena in its retrofit is at $80 per/. They have more room that the MAC does. Unions killed em on that. When I've asked the original builders what the cost might be (they do some work for me and are long time friends) the number was quite imprssive to retrofit the MAC.
If we every get more seats on campus, my guess is that ti'll be in a new arena years in the future.

Birddog
06-14-2013, 09:52 AM
Abe, are you sure Ginge wasn't just running a bootleg on you?

jazzdelmar
06-14-2013, 09:53 AM
Dix my cost per seat was NOT for a new Arena. It's for specifically a retrofit....as an FYI. The Sokane Arena in its retrofit is at $80 per/. They have more room that the MAC does. Unions killed em on that. When I've asked the original builders what the cost might be (they do some work for me and are long time friends) the number was quite imprssive to retrofit the MAC.
If we every get more seats on campus, my guess is that ti'll be in a new arena years in the future.

Doc Abe Trump?

MDABE80
06-14-2013, 11:57 AM
Abe, are you sure Ginge wasn't just running a bootleg on you?

Could be Birdmeister. Could be. You know how those Husky QB's are!

FieldHouseFishHouse
06-14-2013, 02:57 PM
$60 K-$70 K per seat for expansion. Yes the Mac could be expanded but only 800 seats or so....

This sounds like it's off by 10X.

webspinnre
06-14-2013, 03:40 PM
Yeah, I'd think so, as that'd mean that 800 seats would cost 48-56m, which seems unlikely. That being said, 800 seats costing 4.8-5.6m doesn't seem likely to be a particularly good investment. If they were all sold, using #s previously provided, they'd give an extra 288,000 a year, so unless you've got some sugar daddy who just wants to pay for it up front, probably not a wise financial move.

MDABE80
06-14-2013, 05:26 PM
This sounds like it's off by 10X.

Nope it's the number. Built bigger from the beginning it's a lot less. Retro fit is a nightmare.
Back then it was go bigger or not build the baseball field. Those were the choices.

DixieZag
06-14-2013, 06:35 PM
Nope it's the number. Built bigger from the beginning it's a lot less. Retro fit is a nightmare.
Back then it was go bigger or not build the baseball field. Those were the choices.

If those were the only two options, they made the right choice. Given that choice, building it "bigger" implies that one of those two teams would be moved off campus. Can't separate the teams from the school like that.

ZagLawGrad
06-14-2013, 08:14 PM
Wonder what impact playing in front of 6,000 fans instead of twice as many (or more) fans at many other schools has on getting the top recruits to GU?

zagfan1
06-14-2013, 10:10 PM
If we go to another conference we will need a bigger stadium. More tv money = more options regardless of the cost benefit:)

FieldHouseFishHouse
06-17-2013, 12:31 PM
Nope it's the number. Built bigger from the beginning it's a lot less. Retro fit is a nightmare.
Back then it was go bigger or not build the baseball field. Those were the choices.

I'm sure you're right about the retrofit...But it's still hard to believe.

According to Angelo (in previous threads), the cost was about 50% higher to build an 8000 seat arena ($25M vs $37M). In today's dollars that's roughly $45.6M.

So let's say we demolish the whole thing and build a new 8000 seat arena. We'll call that a "retrofit".

$45,600,000/2000 seats=$22,800 per ADDITIONAL seat. Far below the $60-70K you quote.

McCarthy must be a very interesting structure indeed if it costs 3X more to retrofit than it does to demolish and replace.

I couldn't afford tickets even if the arena was 10K seats, so I don't really care one way or the other...I just find the economics fascinating.

DADoZAG
06-17-2013, 12:49 PM
Nope it's the number. Built bigger from the beginning it's a lot less. Retro fit is a nightmare.
Back then it was go bigger or not build the baseball field. Those were the choices.

Yes, I remember that.

But wasn't it because of additional parking that would be needed, something that might no longer be such an issue?

Go ZAGS!

MDABE80
06-17-2013, 12:52 PM
true. See why it should have been done in the first place?? Not to happen..so we have baseball AND basketball. It's the best that could be done without leaving badeball out at Indians Stadium.
It's how it is.

75Zag
06-17-2013, 03:07 PM
My memory has faded, but I think I recall some tension between GU's effort to obtain limited state funding for part of K2 and Spokane's demand that K2 should always remain too small to compete with potential Spokane Arena events. I think GU ultimately turned down state funding (I am sure Angello knows this better than I do) but as a result of the face off between the City and GU, the GU Arena was more or less capped at 6,000 so as not to draw potential acts from the Spokane Arena.

To me a "home" game can be in either K2 or the Arena, but I know that may of you who jealously guard your individual seats in K2 will disagree with me.

Go Bulldogs!

Zagdawg
06-17-2013, 03:10 PM
I would like to see another row of boxes above the two existing sponsors boxes on the northwest/southwest corners of the arena.

You can earn your way into sitting in the "Zag Fan Boxes" during the next home game by being the most "outstanding fans" (you can interpret what that means).

It would get some of us "older" fans up and jumping around cheering with an opportunity to earn the use of the Zag Fan Boxes (little more incentive than Thomas Hammer tshirts).

When was the last time we got a wave going and maintained?

Yes we can.........


Go Zags

webspinnre
06-17-2013, 03:22 PM
Waves are terrible, so I've got no problem with not maintaining them.

75Zag
06-17-2013, 03:28 PM
Waves are terrible, so I've got no problem with not maintaining them.

A clever GU engineering student should do a study correlating the stress placed on artificial hip and knee joints from doing the "wave" and the average age of GU season ticket holders. That might provide an answer to your question.

Mick Jagger is my idol! Rock On!

Go Bulldogs!

Angelo Roncalli
06-17-2013, 03:47 PM
To answer 75's questions, the city's delegation to the state legislature was able to procure some state money for the new on-campus arena (I think it was $1m, but am not positive). GU decided not to accept the $ because there was a concern that the state could then veto or mandate certain shows, activities, etc. in the arena. I also recall the concern about not competing size wise with the Veteran's Arena, but I don't remember that being linked to the state's proposed contribution.

That said, perpetuating the debate about whether the MAC should have been built bigger, whether it can or can't be expanded, and whether it should be torn down and new structure built is an entirely useless endeavor. The facility is what it is. Even if it can be expanded, there is NO interest among the board of trustees, the board of regents, the athletics policy committee or the athletic department (at least as far as I can tell) to consider exploring expansion; it hasn't been on anybody's list or priorities the past 3 years and I don't see it happening in the future.

DixieZag
06-17-2013, 03:51 PM
I really appreciate your input Angelo. I really did not know they were as locked in as they were.

I hope that others found it worthwhile to learn some of the economics regarding it and the school's priorities and such. As tedious as it is to revisit a topic that I should have had the good sense to look up, it was great to hear some of the discussion.

I was mostly trying to find something - anything - to break out of the pie fights regarding who, what, where, why.