Beckham's New Miami MLS Stadium Site

[4Canes]

and stephen ross already said he aint letting miami leave sun life.

No...he didn't.

 

[canesstevealum08]

Cosig I'm sure you know this but, for the others... UM is the 2nd largest owner of private real estate in Miami

 

[TheCaneShow]

Ross can't be making much on UM games, I'm sure if Miami could give him a reasonable buyout agreement he'd be more than willing to let Miami escape Sun Life.

However there isn't a plausible alternative right now and there probably won't be one anytime soon.

 

[Consigliere]

Cosig I'm sure you know this but, for the others... UM is the 2nd largest owner of private real estate in Miami

Stop it. We're poor. We can't afford anything. Priorities.Net

The reason we're in this terrible situation with SLS is there was no priority to do anything about our football stadium long term.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Cosig I'm sure you know this but, for the others... UM is the 2nd largest owner of private real estate in Miami

Stop it. We're poor. We can't afford anything. Priorities.Net

The reason we're in this terrible situation with SLS is there was no priority to do anything about our football stadium long term.

Funny, I'd think the long-term desire to do something about "our football stadium" is precisely why we're in SunLife, and it's not a terrible situation at all. We're making more money off it than we were in the OB. Ross obviously wouldn't have given us such favorable terms if we'd have signed a short-term deal. So basically the idea is to reap the financial benefits of a solid long-term deal at SunLife until we figure out what to do next, and we'll pay to break the lease if we have to. Makes good business sense to me.

 

[TroutCane]

Ross's development Partner for over 30 years is Jorge Perez, Perez is on UM's BOT. Perez will see this move happen, bank on it.
45,000 seats at a minimum, and we'll still play the big games up at Sum Life.

and stephen ross already said he aint letting miami leave sun life.

No...he didn't.

 

[TheCaneShow]

You donating a couple hundred million to the athletic department to help the university to "stop being cheap"? You got a couple acres of land to give to the school for free in downtown Miami?

I know we've gone back and forth about this and there is no need to do it again. But to answer the second question.

We had a ton of VACANT land (big enough for a stadium and parking) but the school valued something more than a stadium.

Priorities.Net

Might as well tear down the Life Science & Technology Park and start building a football stadium right?

 

[Consigliere]

Funny, I'd think the long-term desire to do something about "our football stadium" is precisely why we're in SunLife, and it's not a terrible situation at all. We're making more money off it than we were in the OB. Ross obviously wouldn't have given us such favorable terms if we'd have signed a short-term deal. So basically the idea is to reap the financial benefits of a solid long-term deal at SunLife until we figure out what to do next, and we'll pay to break the lease if we have to. Makes good business sense to me.

The long-term stability of our football program proves the opposite. The stadium is terrible for Miami in terms of home field advantage and offering a place to be proud to hang our shingle.

What are/were these favorable terms by the way? Nobody seems to have any information other than the length.

My issue with the part in bold is it is blind hope. There is no proof that there is any plan in place.

 

[Consigliere]

You donating a couple hundred million to the athletic department to help the university to "stop being cheap"? You got a couple acres of land to give to the school for free in downtown Miami?

I know we've gone back and forth about this and there is no need to do it again. But to answer the second question.

We had a ton of VACANT land (big enough for a stadium and parking) but the school valued something more than a stadium.

Priorities.Net

Might as well tear down the Life Science & Technology Park and start building a football stadium right?

Irrelevant statement, ignore the truth and post irrelevancy.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Funny, I'd think the long-term desire to do something about "our football stadium" is precisely why we're in SunLife, and it's not a terrible situation at all. We're making more money off it than we were in the OB. Ross obviously wouldn't have given us such favorable terms if we'd have signed a short-term deal. So basically the idea is to reap the financial benefits of a solid long-term deal at SunLife until we figure out what to do next, and we'll pay to break the lease if we have to. Makes good business sense to me.

The long-term stability of our football program proves the opposite. The stadium is terrible for Miami in terms of home field advantage and offering a place to be proud to hang our shingle.

What are/were these favorable terms by the way? Nobody seems to have any information other than the length.

My issue with the part in bold is it is blind hope. There is no proof that there is any plan in place.

At this point, anything anyone says, pro or con, about the deal is all speculation. You lean toward speculating the worst possible scenario, while I tend to go with a more favorable spin, as I think that Shalala et al are not dumbasses nor are they gullible businesspeople.

The "long term stability" of our program is not in doubt. We're not in any danger of folding the program. We're in great financial shape, better than we've ever been. That much is not speculation, it's been repeated in articles with the figures to back it up.

 

[Consigliere]

At this point, anything anyone says, pro or con, about the deal is all speculation. You lean toward speculating the worst possible scenario, while I tend to go with a more favorable spin, as I think that Shalala et al are not dumbasses nor are they gullible businesspeople.

The "long term stability" of our program is not in doubt. We're not in any danger of folding the program. We're in great financial shape, better than we've ever been. That much is not speculation, it's been repeated in articles with the figures to back it up.

Pro or Con, about what deal?

Where are these quotes in articles about figures? Please explain, I don't follow. I never see any figures actually produced.

The long term stability is a load of **** argument. To stay in SLS for the full term demonstrates the admin is maintaining the status quo. That is all. It doesn't prove that we're making a lot of money, it doesn't prove that we're interested in what is BEST for the university long term...it just shows we're maintaining the status quo. That is all.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

At this point, anything anyone says, pro or con, about the deal is all speculation. You lean toward speculating the worst possible scenario, while I tend to go with a more favorable spin, as I think that Shalala et al are not dumbasses nor are they gullible businesspeople.

The "long term stability" of our program is not in doubt. We're not in any danger of folding the program. We're in great financial shape, better than we've ever been. That much is not speculation, it's been repeated in articles with the figures to back it up.

Pro or Con, about what deal?

Where are these quotes in articles about figures? Please explain, I don't follow. I never see any figures actually produced.

The long term stability is a load of **** argument. To stay in SLS for the full term demonstrates the admin is maintaining the status quo. That is all. It doesn't prove that we're making a lot of money, it doesn't prove that we're interested in what is BEST for the university long term...it just shows we're maintaining the status quo. That is all.

Pro or con concerning the fine print of the terms of the lease, our relative ability or inability to get out of the deal should we find something better, whether or not we could have gotten a short-term deal that was as tilted in our favor as this long term deal was, etc.

IIRC, the move to SLS netted us an extra 2 mil/yr or so over the deal we had at the OB. I've seen that figure mentioned several times, in articles like this one. But since UM is private, the exact terms of business were never disclosed to the press. So, in essence, we know it's been good for UM, but we don't know all the details.

Owners often give better lease terms for long-term deals....which is why I'd speculate that Donna agreed to the long-term deal instead of a short-term 5-10 year deal. But that doesn't mean we have to (or that we should) stay there for the entire duration of the lease. Again, my point is that it's likely that Donna agreed to a long-term deal for financial reasons, and that she and the rest of the folks at UM would be able to get out of the deal if they found something better (they'd have to pay a penalty, of course, but they likely could still get out of the deal).

You're the one complaining about our "long term stability." I'm simply pointing out that we are stable on financial grounds. That you and other fans don't like SLS is of little consequence when we're talking about the long term stability. It's also of little consequence when discussing what's BEST for the university, since you have no idea what is best.

 

[Tad Footeball]

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/ript...ll_look_like_with_the_boat_slip_filled_in.php


You can pretty much forget about any sort of serious tailgating happening if UM ends up playing at this location.

Oh yeah, and traffic will still be an absolute nightmare.

I know this was a rush rendering by Beckham's group but I wonder why an actual view of the Bay isn't included in the stadium pictured? No real point to demanding waterfront property if the water is only appreciable walking into the place. Obviously the AAA is an indoor venue so a comparison is irrelevant.

I'm soooo over debating logistics and contract law on this but will still point out that a 40,000 seat venue is still feasible on this size parcel of land- per Beckham's group itself. I'll leaning toward the opposite view of a chronic poster on this topic though. Beckham isn't stringing UM along to get what he wants. I'm fact, I think he comes back to us to be included in the project if it looks like public support is iffy on the referendum. I really just can't tell right now if he's serious about wanting a larger venue in general or if his group is tiring of local politics and will take what they can get near any water right now. No matter what you feel about this, those Royal Caribbean commercials were a joke.

 

[Kirijax]

I keep trying to come up with reasons to embrace SLS. It's the only way to be happy really.

 

[Consigliere]

Pro or con concerning the fine print of the terms of the lease, our relative ability or inability to get out of the deal should we find something better, whether or not we could have gotten a short-term deal that was as tilted in our favor as this long term deal was, etc.

IIRC, the move to SLS netted us an extra 2 mil/yr or so over the deal we had at the OB. I've seen that figure mentioned several times, in articles like this one. But since UM is private, the exact terms of business were never disclosed to the press. So, in essence, we know it's been good for UM, but we don't know all the details.

Owners often give better lease terms for long-term deals....which is why I'd speculate that Donna agreed to the long-term deal instead of a short-term 5-10 year deal. But that doesn't mean we have to (or that we should) stay there for the entire duration of the lease. Again, my point is that it's likely that Donna agreed to a long-term deal for financial reasons, and that she and the rest of the folks at UM would be able to get out of the deal if they found something better (they'd have to pay a penalty, of course, but they likely could still get out of the deal).

You're the one complaining about our "long term stability." I'm simply pointing out that we are stable on financial grounds. That you and other fans don't like SLS is of little consequence when we're talking about the long term stability. It's also of little consequence when discussing what's BEST for the university, since you have no idea what is best.

Thank you for explaining what you meant. I'm not here to fight, I'm giving you my 2 cents.

Even if we made more money (at the time of the original decision), I'm pretty sure we can all agree that SLS offers nothing in terms of home field advantage. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that 25 years in this environment is not good for our program either.

I understand what you're saying about long term leases potentially being more advantageous to the tenant (us). They also potentially lock you in for a long time. I just feel that we never had (and still don't) an admin that really wants our own stadium. I believe that our admin doesn't have this as a priority at all. I believe they took an option that was easy (at the time) and required little work on their part.

The part in bold is bullchit. We can all agree that this is not what's best for our program in terms of gameday feel or a home of our own (health of the program is winning too). But there is no proof that this is what is best for us long term financially either. There is only a quote about us making $2 Million more a year in revenue (from a 2007 article). That is it.

I will explain why there are consequences and your opinion matters. The fans are the ones who buy the product. If the fans don't like the product, some will not buy the product. If you don't like the product because it is inferior (actual performance), than you might stop buying. If you don't like the product because it is unappealing (the stadium environment), than you might stop buying.

Eventually these fans matter. They spend money on the product. The football program generates revenues, the money spent matters. It is of my opinion based on what I receive as an alumni and the actual actions of the school that there are much higher priorities for them. Perhaps by discussing on a message board it doesn't matter but the fans and their actual support matters.

Your article offers an interesting quote...Miami has won nearly 70 percent of its games there, bolstered by raucous crowds. "Is it appropriate for the University of Miami, a private university, to ask the people, the taxpayers of the city, to spend $200 million on six games a year?"

First quote is about the home field advantage and a real game day environment. That is what we had.

Second quote is about priorities and small thinking. It's not 6 games a year. That is small minded thinking. That is a lack of priority example as well. We can use it as much as we want because it is our home.

I want to see what is next for the Hurricanes. I don't expect a stadium next week but how about 7 years from now. How about some campaign or effort on their behalf? There will be no campaign, we fell into SLS and we will maintain the same.

 

[77cane]

They could build a 45,000 seat stadium where you could roll back the seats closest to the field to widen it for soccer. Then you could put in a smaller upper deck area that you could tastefully put it a tarp system that if done correctly would make the stadium look more intimate for soccer. I also believe if the University and the MLS team had a little marketing foresight they could name the soccer team the Hurricanes with the team colors being Orange, Green, and White. This would bring great synergy for both the teams and the city. You would have the team name out their year round.

 

[4Canes]

They could build a 45,000 seat stadium where you could roll back the seats closest to the field to widen it for soccer. Then you could put in a smaller upper deck area that you could tastefully put it a tarp system that if done correctly would make the stadium look more intimate for soccer. I also believe if the University and the MLS team had a little marketing foresight they could name the soccer team the Hurricanes with the team colors being Orange, Green, and White. This would bring great synergy for both the teams and the city. You would have the team name out their year round.

MLS has already said they don't want an empty stadium, that's going to happen even at 25K much less 40K+.
The last part is frankly ridiculous...sorry.

 

[TheCaneShow]

You donating a couple hundred million to the athletic department to help the university to "stop being cheap"? You got a couple acres of land to give to the school for free in downtown Miami?

I know we've gone back and forth about this and there is no need to do it again. But to answer the second question.

We had a ton of VACANT land (big enough for a stadium and parking) but the school valued something more than a stadium.

Priorities.Net

Might as well tear down the Life Science & Technology Park and start building a football stadium right?

Irrelevant statement, ignore the truth and post irrelevancy.

Just like you casually ignore the fact that Miami has never and will never have the funding available for a football stadium.

Pot, kettle and all that jazz.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Pro or con concerning the fine print of the terms of the lease, our relative ability or inability to get out of the deal should we find something better, whether or not we could have gotten a short-term deal that was as tilted in our favor as this long term deal was, etc.

IIRC, the move to SLS netted us an extra 2 mil/yr or so over the deal we had at the OB. I've seen that figure mentioned several times, in articles like this one. But since UM is private, the exact terms of business were never disclosed to the press. So, in essence, we know it's been good for UM, but we don't know all the details.

Owners often give better lease terms for long-term deals....which is why I'd speculate that Donna agreed to the long-term deal instead of a short-term 5-10 year deal. But that doesn't mean we have to (or that we should) stay there for the entire duration of the lease. Again, my point is that it's likely that Donna agreed to a long-term deal for financial reasons, and that she and the rest of the folks at UM would be able to get out of the deal if they found something better (they'd have to pay a penalty, of course, but they likely could still get out of the deal).

You're the one complaining about our "long term stability." I'm simply pointing out that we are stable on financial grounds. That you and other fans don't like SLS is of little consequence when we're talking about the long term stability. It's also of little consequence when discussing what's BEST for the university, since you have no idea what is best.

Thank you for explaining what you meant. I'm not here to fight, I'm giving you my 2 cents.

Even if we made more money (at the time of the original decision), I'm pretty sure we can all agree that SLS offers nothing in terms of home field advantage. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that 25 years in this environment is not good for our program either.

I understand what you're saying about long term leases potentially being more advantageous to the tenant (us). They also potentially lock you in for a long time. I just feel that we never had (and still don't) an admin that really wants our own stadium. I believe that our admin doesn't have this as a priority at all. I believe they took an option that was easy (at the time) and required little work on their part.

The part in bold is bullchit. We can all agree that this is not what's best for our program in terms of gameday feel or a home of our own (health of the program is winning too). But there is no proof that this is what is best for us long term financially either. There is only a quote about us making $2 Million more a year in revenue (from a 2007 article). That is it.

I will explain why there are consequences and your opinion matters. The fans are the ones who buy the product. If the fans don't like the product, some will not buy the product. If you don't like the product because it is inferior (actual performance), than you might stop buying. If you don't like the product because it is unappealing (the stadium environment), than you might stop buying.

Eventually these fans matter. They spend money on the product. The football program generates revenues, the money spent matters. It is of my opinion based on what I receive as an alumni and the actual actions of the school that there are much higher priorities for them. Perhaps by discussing on a message board it doesn't matter but the fans and their actual support matters.

Your article offers an interesting quote...Miami has won nearly 70 percent of its games there, bolstered by raucous crowds. "Is it appropriate for the University of Miami, a private university, to ask the people, the taxpayers of the city, to spend $200 million on six games a year?"

First quote is about the home field advantage and a real game day environment. That is what we had.

Second quote is about priorities and small thinking. It's not 6 games a year. That is small minded thinking. That is a lack of priority example as well. We can use it as much as we want because it is our home.

I want to see what is next for the Hurricanes. I don't expect a stadium next week but how about 7 years from now. How about some campaign or effort on their behalf? There will be no campaign, we fell into SLS and we will maintain the same.

Re: your last sentence, it sure sounds like you've already made up your mind about "what is next for the Hurricanes." You're not waiting to see...you're sitting in judgement already.

Here's the deal: unfortunately, our move to SLS coincided with a massive downturn in our football program. While we may agree that SLS does not offer a great crowd environment, SLS is not the reason we've been mediocre for the past decade-plus. We could have played in the OB during that entire time (we actually DID play in the OB during the first several years of that downturn), and our record would likely have been the same; the home field advantage at the OB didn't help us in losses to UNC, GT, or UVA, and wouldn't have helped us in subsequent home losses to UNC, K-State, UVA and the like. Those games netted about the same attendance figures in the OB as they did at SLS...which is to say, the crowds were small, and wouldn't have helped us win games.

Here's what it boils down to: If Shalala and UM can find a way to swing a deal with Beckham's group, I'll be all for it. I'm certainly not advocating for staying in SLS if they can find a way to buy into a 45k stadium on the water. I hope that comes to fruition, in fact, and I'm pretty sure Shalala and Blake and all would love for that happen. And it may happen; this beckham proposal seems to change every few weeks and is still far from a done deal, so we'll see.

Aside from that, though, it seems that at present, UM has neither the pull within city hall, nor the $$, nor the donor base, to make a 45k+ stadium all on their own, in a place that is any more convenient to campus than SLS is.

On the plus side, the deal at SLS nets us 2+ mil/yr that we didn't have previously, and that adds up over time. Properly cared for, that could be a nice 15-20m nest egg that we're sitting on right now, waiting to see what happens next, waiting to see how the chips fall with Beckham.

Worst case scenario, we stay at SLS for another 18 years. Given that Ross has just agreed to put up the cost of renovating SLS all on his own, it looks like the initially proposed renovations are going to go through. This means that many of the standard issues people have with SLS--the seats being too far from the field, the lack of noise and atmosphere--will be at least partially solved.

If...and yes, that's a big if...we can find a way to get back to winning consistently, the crowds will come back, at least for the big games. And bigger crowds mean more noise and more atmosphere.

So I guess what I'm saying is that even if we stay in SLS, it's not the end of the world for UM football. It's not a preferred option, but it's not the death knell of the program either. So let's stop acting like it is.

 

[Consigliere]

You donating a couple hundred million to the athletic department to help the university to "stop being cheap"? You got a couple acres of land to give to the school for free in downtown Miami?

I know we've gone back and forth about this and there is no need to do it again. But to answer the second question.

We had a ton of VACANT land (big enough for a stadium and parking) but the school valued something more than a stadium.

Priorities.Net

Might as well tear down the Life Science & Technology Park and start building a football stadium right?

Irrelevant statement, ignore the truth and post irrelevancy.

Just like you casually ignore the fact that Miami has never and will never have the funding available for a football stadium.

Pot, kettle and all that jazz.

No point made, good try.

We didn't have funding for the new buidlings either so DS raised 340 million for it during momentum2.

The best part about a stadium is it isn't a sunk cost, it generates revenue. We don't have to split that revenue either.

Keep trying. You and the admin seem to have similar priorities.

Oh wait, priorities.net