Killzone3abc said:

---

Depends on who you ask on this board which answer you get regarding if we have the money or not.

---

I think the people on this board with legitimate intel agree there's no money.

As of this past May, Coach Earley was still talking about the stadium renovations going forward after the player development stuff is finished...

He also said that this fall we'd see Player Development Center drawings. As of late spring the initial design work had been done on the player development improvements but that they weren't "baseball ready". They were more general in laying out spaces and allocating square footage to certain uses, etc but that they needed to be tweaked to make it work from a baseball operations standpoint.

Captain Pablo said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

I thought the money for Jimbo's buyout has already been raised and I'm assuming sitting in investment accounts until needed. We have NIL to fund as well. It's about people being stretched thin.

---

The announced plan was the upfront was provided by the TMF from spare funds and the rest is being paid by the athletic department over the remaining buyout period (which aligns with end of the extension.)

The assumption at the time was they didn't want to impinge NIL funding/revenue share/new scholarship funding. I've heard no change in this plan and the George Strait concert and Brazil v Mexico were supposedly part of the athletic department effort to create novel revenue streams to pay the buyout.

---

The explanations of how the whole Jimbo debacle is being handled, and its effects on funding for pretty much everything are all over the map

Seems to me to be a convenient excuse for pretty much everything

---

The was the original, announced plan. I have no clue if it changed but I doubt it. I am curious who came up with this awful "plan." But the stunning incompetence of our school hasn't changed a whit…

TAMU1990 said:

---

I'm just repeating what has been said. It's obvious the desire to restrict spending is here with the hire of Alberts, personnel decisions, and no stadium. I guess in 5 years after Jimbo's buyout is gone we'll get back to stadium talk.

But we do have player development facility to build and they need to put plans out in public asap for recruiting purposes at least (player acquisition and negative recruiting pitches).

---

And Brauny said we just lost a recruit to tu due to the lack of no player facilities. It's a factor. I'm sure there have been more.

Renn_dls said:

---

I want to keep the berm. At least just one of them. Preferably, the one where the Patio at the Park is, because it covers the Olsen Field sign.

---

Have you ever sat and watched a game from the berms? Unless you are in your 20's its not comfortable at all. We want berms they should be in the outfield, not where prime seating should go.

85AustinAg said:

---

Renn_dls said:

---

I want to keep the berm. At least just one of them. Preferably, the one where the Patio at the Park is, because it covers the Olsen Field sign.

---

Have you ever sat and watched a game from the berms? Unless you are in your 20's its not comfortable at all. We want berms they should be in the outfield, not where prime seating should go.

---

Agreed

They need to add a ton of seats. You can't grow the enrollment like this and not grow the baseball seating. It should be doubled at minimum.

So, I got to ask Trev Alberts about this during his Q&A session at Texags PKO, and his response, as I understood it, is that they will have the design for the player facilities done by November and that construction will follow. As to fan facilities, that is further down the road and will depend on how much revenue can be generated (and presumably, how much money is donated). He said, "If we have $30 million, we'll spend $30 million. If we have $70 million, we'll spend $70 million." He made it clear that, although our debt burden is not as bad as most of our competitors, we are NOT going further into debt for baseball facilities. The money will have to come from revenue (or donations).

deh40 said:

---

twk said:

---

So, I got to ask Trev Alberts about this during his Q&A session at Texags PKO, and his response, as I understood it, is that they will have the design for the player facilities done by November and that construction will follow. As to fan facilities, that is further down the road and will depend on how much revenue can be generated (and presumably, how much money is donated). He said, "If we have $30 million, we'll spend $30 million. If we have $70 million, we'll spend $70 million." He made it clear that, although our debt burden is not as bad as most of our competitors, we are NOT going further into debt for baseball facilities. The money will have to come from revenue (or donations).

---

So as far as revenue, is he talking about revenue generated by baseball or overall athletic department. If he's talking just baseball revenue, it seems like chicken or the egg. We need more revenue to expand, but we need expanded stadium to generate more revenue.

---

He spoke in general terms, but I took it to mean that they would consider the revenue stream that would be generated from new seating, particularly new premium seating. Having said that, I think our fans consistently overestimate how much revenue we can generate from baseball ticket revenue.

twk said:

---

deh40 said:

---

twk said:

---

So, I got to ask Trev Alberts about this during his Q&A session at Texags PKO, and his response, as I understood it, is that they will have the design for the player facilities done by November and that construction will follow. As to fan facilities, that is further down the road and will depend on how much revenue can be generated (and presumably, how much money is donated). He said, "If we have $30 million, we'll spend $30 million. If we have $70 million, we'll spend $70 million." He made it clear that, although our debt burden is not as bad as most of our competitors, we are NOT going further into debt for baseball facilities. The money will have to come from revenue (or donations).

---

So as far as revenue, is he talking about revenue generated by baseball or overall athletic department. If he's talking just baseball revenue, it seems like chicken or the egg. We need more revenue to expand, but we need expanded stadium to generate more revenue.

---

He spoke in general terms, but I took it to mean that they would consider the revenue stream that would be generated from new seating, particularly new premium seating. Having said that, I think our fans consistently overestimate how much revenue we can generate from baseball ticket revenue.

---

They also over estimate how many additional permanent seats can be added. This notion of doubling the size of the park is just crazy

LB12Diamond said:

---

I did not realize the berms are purchased as season tickets by some. Who knew?

---

You're not adding capacity, you cannot have a ga and reserved seat in the same place.

And in the outfield, the seats they wanna build will never get you close to doubling capacity

I think it will eventually happen, but I'm glad the players are getting the advantages first.

The potentially interesting news from PKO on the subject of fan amenities was that Alberts said, once the new player facilities were done, the space where player facilities are currently located would be available for seating expansion. This is a big deal because whatever we do, the bulk of the seating needs to be on the 3rd base line. Seats added down the first base line will be terrible for post season play, looking directly into the sun when you look towards home plate. I would add all my reserved seating on the 3rd base side, and put some GA permanent seating down the first base line. Then, some berm seating in the outfield and call it a day.

Even with that flexibility down the 3rd base line, I don't think we will simply do an extension of the grandstand. They want to add new premium seating, and that will reduce the number of new seats that can be added wherever they do that, and the most logical place is down the 3rd base line. The premium seating is going to have to pay for debt service on whatever we do. If someone wants to write a check for a simple grandstand extension, we'd do that, but, if we have to finance any part of it, then Alberts is going to require that to be covered by additional baseball ticket revenue.

BQ_90 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

annie88 said:

---

I think it will eventually happen, but I'm glad the players are getting the advantages first.

---

Yes, that is a good thing.

I hope stadium improvements happen sooner rather than later. In my opinion, it doesn't even need to be something fancy. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see something like Dudy Noble. That place is absolutely incredible

I suppose that ship has sailed, with resources being shifted toward player compensation

That said, I think bluebell could be a much better experience for the fans with just a few improvements

I have long advocated leveling the berms and simply adding a couple of sections of exact conforming permanent, concrete grandstands down the lines. Just expand what you already have, and get permanent infield/baseline seating to about 8000 or so.

Clean up the rest, and a few amenities if you want, keep a little outfield seating and be done

I do not believe that would cost anywhere near $70 million. It could probably be done fairly inexpensively, relatively speaking, and you would have a very good facility with plenty of seating for the fans, and top-notch facilities for the players.

---

it won't cost that, but do that and the player facility it will cost that. twk has said it over and over.

Trev basically said they're not taking on new debt. So those of you begging for improvements, you're still not getting a seat. If you're not donating now, you're not getting a seat. They will try to create new seats that maximize revenue, that's suites/club seating.

---

Take it easy man. I'm not disputing anything twk says, and I'm not interested in season tickets. I go when I'm available and can get a ticket. That's usually 2-4 games per year, plus the March Classic every couple years.

My interest is seeing greater availability for those who want season tickets, but also greater availability for those who go to the games on an ad hoc basis. More seating means more availability

It really is that simple. I hope to see it happen. If it doesn't happen, so what. I'll still go to games when I can, and watch the rest on TV. No biggie

Renn_dls said:

---

I want there to be a balance for everyone. I'm someone who goes to every game, but I want to be in GA with my friends. I don't like sitting with the old people. It's not enjoyable for me. I'm all for seat availability for both people who go to every game, but I want people who go when they can to have seat availability. There are a lot of games, so i completly understand if most poeple can't go to very game.

---

I like sitting in GA as well, and if they get rid of it, it will kill the atmosphere