Day 2 in Econ 101 -if demand is high and supply is limited and no one is buying , prices are unreasonable
Second attempt
- Thread starter CMcCat
- Start date
New NFL owners have to be approved by existing owners. And there happens to be a Patrick G. Ryan, Jr. who is less than 87 years old and could be in position to showcase a cutting-edge new Evanston Stadium as his evidence he can lead development of bigger, better one in Arlington Heights.
Thank you for these insights.
Evanston already approved 60 annual events of under 10,000 people. They will go after the Salt Shed immediately and maybe some other similar venues who are exposed to Chicago labor union requirements. NU initially asked for 15 larger concerts, right? No doubt they will be well beyond that number in a few years if they can prove they can do it without totally antagonizing the neighbors. It generates $ for the city. Same story happened at Wrigley with initial hesitations before increase in night games/concerts/etc.
Am I right that your $50mm number above is only for football? So add in a like number of concert events as football games (6) plus 60 concerts that are 20-25% of the capacity of football (equivalent of 15 games). On the back of my envelope, that seems like concert $ > football $ already before # of large concert events increasing future. No?
How many boxes are in the new RF plan? The UC has over 200.
The Ryan Family aren’t new NFL owners. I don’t know that they’d have to be “re-approved” if they bought out the McCaskeys. Also don’t think that that is a real issue anyway, as NFL ownership is basically a Billionaire’s Club and the Ryans are also squarely members there.
Tough to tell. Looks like 4 field-level suites, a super premium “Founders Level” with 5 boxes then other “normal” boxes with 9 more, then a handful of suites and “mini-suites” on the upper level. Also a large end zone club (probably similar to the Wilson Club) as well as an east concourse club.
It will be interesting to hear the acoustics at the new RF from outside the stadium. A little difficult to believe that it won't be noisy with a full blown concert, but noise was a big issue in design and acoustic engineers can do some incredible stuff. As I think about it, if you put the stage at the south end, the speakers will be directed at Wilmette a few blocks away. Who knows?
I do think if NU wants to up their concert game they could put in structured parking on the west lot. Kind of striving to self contain most of the crowd and minimize peeing in the bushes type thing.
So never say never to NU becoming quite the event venue.
I do think if NU wants to up their concert game they could put in structured parking on the west lot. Kind of striving to self contain most of the crowd and minimize peeing in the bushes type thing.
So never say never to NU becoming quite the event venue.
Why would they put a 4,000 person concert inside a 30k person stadium?
Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were talking about the younger Ryan, that’s not really how owner approval works. It’s not a job interview or a “is this guy good enough” type calculus.
Also, Ryan the younger could easily already be within the legal structure of the Ryan family holdings that include the team, and would have already been vetted and approved.
Bunch of sound-related stuff in the environmental assessment that you’d probably be better versed than I to look at with a tech background: https://www.cityofevanston.org/home/showpublisheddocument/89618/638194907992000000
Yes I was just taking FB revenues, I am totally guessing on numbers of suites as I have not seen the plans. Just suggesting that the reality is that while they will be there, they won't represent a significant % of the seats
As far as concerts etc, for probably half the year or maybe more, the stadium would not be available for such concerts because of the weather and actual football preparations and games so really hard to see how they would get that number of events so that would mean something like 2-3 times a week for the part of the season that it would be available. . And if you are having less than 10K, wouldn't it be easier to just have them in the BB arena? And that would be a more intimate venue. Also cuts down on neighborhood complaints regarding noise and the like.
Better to put it in basketball arena. And it can be done all year round,
Whatever happened to that guy who said Learfield was taking over the world??
Home
LEARFIELD is your connection to college sports & live events - unlocking value for universities & venues while connecting brands to fans.
www.learfield.com
You literally liked a post with a direct link to the actual plans. Your valid excuses are wearing thin and we are pretty far into “whining and bitching” territory.
I liked it merely because it was nice to see the actual drawings When you put up something I can appreciate, I feel it is reasonable to acknowledge it
Last edited:
Wasn't meWhatever happened to that guy who said Learfield was taking over the world??
Home
LEARFIELD is your connection to college sports & live events - unlocking value for universities & venues while connecting brands to fans.www.learfield.com
Thanks, CGC, you give me too much credit. I have read a lot of acoustic studies but far, far from knowledgeable - a highly technical discipline. I have found consultants generally to be a good bunch and that their models are pretty good.
My take is this study was prepared for public consumption. Calm the waters to allow the stadium to be built and a limited number of concerts to be allowed. The consultant had to do a deep dive into how the stadium could be modified in the future to come up with the study on concerts vs game days. Likely construction cost numbers have been run on all that. The bottom line is stick the stage at the south end, add some sound modifications and the consultant thinks the sound is equivalent on the north, east and west property lines to the hum of a moderately busy street - then falls off from there. Doesn't sound bad but when it is in your neighborhood which has been virtually silent forever, a couple of times a week having to hear background noise, however moderate, is a drag.
I think the bigger issue is traffic, parking and drunk kids peeing on lawns and smoking pot as they wander down your streets late at night. No good. I think NU would have to keep the experience mostly self-contained with structured parking. The west lot area is pretty large but I don't know how those numbers work.
All speculation but good fun.
West and East lots would hold about 1400 cars. Not really a problem for concerts with 4K or less, Up to 6500 they are at least used to dealing with. But beyond 4K concerts between that and 10 it could get dicey as it would be at night and people would be unused to how traffic and parking work,.
Big concerts would be a potential nightmare as they would be at night with people that don't know how things work, And getting out, public transportation would generally not be an option, Could be a disaster for the neighborhood
Last edited:
That is all of 200 people. I assume you are talking about the donations with the $1 million gift. I thought I had hear that it was a one time donation of $1 mill and $45k for 10 years for 10 seats. If you have an update it would be interesting to see.
Dear Grok: In the current NIL era, is it wise for Northwestern University to construct an $800 million football stadium?
Answer: The decision for Northwestern University to build an $850 million football stadium (per updated estimates) in the current Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era is a complex one, with significant financial, strategic, and competitive implications. Below, I evaluate the wisdom of this investment by analyzing the key factors, including the impact of NIL, financial feasibility, competitive positioning, and alternative uses of funds.
In this environment, universities must balance investments in facilities, NIL programs, and other athletic priorities while maintaining academic and community commitments.
(Analysis omitted due to length)
Conclusion:
Building an $850 million stadium is a bold but risky move for Northwestern in the NIL era. The project’s private funding, long-term revenue potential, and alignment with industry trends make it financially feasible and strategically appealing, particularly for enhancing fan experience and community ties. However, the opportunity cost is significant: funds could be used to strengthen NIL efforts, which are more critical for recruiting and competing in the Big Ten’s upper echelon. The stadium’s success hinges on Northwestern’s ability to generate consistent revenue from premium seating and events while navigating community opposition and legal risks.
**Recommendation**: The stadium is a reasonable investment given its private funding and potential to modernize Northwestern’s program, but it should not come at the expense of NIL competitiveness. Northwestern must aggressively grow its NIL collective (through donor support or stadium revenue) to ensure the program can attract talent to match its new facilities. Without a balanced approach, the stadium risks becoming a shiny monument to ambition that fails to deliver on-field success in the NIL-driven landscape.
If you’d like me to analyze specific financial projections, recruiting data, or community impact further, let me know!
Answer: The decision for Northwestern University to build an $850 million football stadium (per updated estimates) in the current Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era is a complex one, with significant financial, strategic, and competitive implications. Below, I evaluate the wisdom of this investment by analyzing the key factors, including the impact of NIL, financial feasibility, competitive positioning, and alternative uses of funds.
In this environment, universities must balance investments in facilities, NIL programs, and other athletic priorities while maintaining academic and community commitments.
(Analysis omitted due to length)
Conclusion:
Building an $850 million stadium is a bold but risky move for Northwestern in the NIL era. The project’s private funding, long-term revenue potential, and alignment with industry trends make it financially feasible and strategically appealing, particularly for enhancing fan experience and community ties. However, the opportunity cost is significant: funds could be used to strengthen NIL efforts, which are more critical for recruiting and competing in the Big Ten’s upper echelon. The stadium’s success hinges on Northwestern’s ability to generate consistent revenue from premium seating and events while navigating community opposition and legal risks.
**Recommendation**: The stadium is a reasonable investment given its private funding and potential to modernize Northwestern’s program, but it should not come at the expense of NIL competitiveness. Northwestern must aggressively grow its NIL collective (through donor support or stadium revenue) to ensure the program can attract talent to match its new facilities. Without a balanced approach, the stadium risks becoming a shiny monument to ambition that fails to deliver on-field success in the NIL-driven landscape.
If you’d like me to analyze specific financial projections, recruiting data, or community impact further, let me know!
That's as reasonable as anything we get on here.
Did you happen to ask Grok whether it's worth browsing fan message boards? Maybe we should just chat with AI...
The stadium is being built and I have no doubt it will be spectacular. The real risk is not NIL, but whether Northwestern will remain solvent, and carrying the debt for the stadium doesn’t help. Remember, the $800M from the Ryans is a bequest, so NU won’t be receiving those funds until Mr. Ryan passes away. NU is already over-leveraged with its on campus capital improvements and new facilities. Losing $750M in federal funding, plus fewer international students (who pay full freight), and the threat of increased taxing of the endowment will make NIL superfluous.
So if you care about the school, consider redirecting your donations to the university (it’s not about the next four years it’s about the next forty), instead of the athletic department and NIL.
Seriously? Have you seen NUs endowment?
Dear Grok: Do you have any opinion on the quality of discourse on the message boards located at the Northwestern University fan site WildcatReport (located at northwestern.forums.rivals.com)?
Answer: I don’t have personal opinions, but I can provide an analysis of the discourse on the WildcatReport message boards at northwestern.forums.rivals.com based on available information and general characteristics of fan-driven forums.
WildcatReport is a prominent fan forum for Northwestern University sports, covering football, basketball, baseball, and recruiting, with dedicated boards like "The Rock" (premium), "FloridAlum Memorial Football Board," and "Wildcat Basketball Board." These boards are described as some of the largest and most active for Northwestern fans, suggesting a significant level of engagement.
(Description of general characteristics of message boards, including examples from ours, omitted due to length.)
Specific to WildcatReport, the discourse appears to be relatively high-quality for a fan forum, given the focus on detailed analysis and recruiting updates, as seen in posts about commitments like Joshua Sims or Max Green. The presence of premium content suggests a subset of users willing to pay for exclusive insights, which may elevate the level of discussion in those sections. However, like most sports forums, the quality can dip during heated moments or when speculation outpaces evidence, as seen in critical comments about player decisions or coaching.
Compared to other college sports forums, WildcatReport’s discourse seems typical but slightly more restrained, possibly due to Northwestern’s academic culture and smaller, dedicated fanbase. For instance, a Notre Dame forum shows similar passion but with more intense debates over high-profile players, reflecting a larger fanbase’s dynamics.
Endowments look huge, but they’re used like retirement accounts. The earnings from the endowment covers operating costs—such as faculty and staff salaries and benefits, scholarships, funding for graduate students. Last year the endowment had a payout of $744M. Of that money, 40% is restricted, which means that the donor gave the money on specific usage conditions on how the annual payout from the donation must be spent (for example, to support travel for art history students). The leaves about $450M for Northwestern to spend to cover general costs.
Like your retirement account, you don’t want to withdraw too much too early or you’ll burn through your savings. It’s the same with university endowments. If you start cutting into the principal, your earnings decrease and the endowment dwindles. The difference is that we’re all going to eventually die, so we can draw down our accounts based on life expectancy assumptions, whereas a university is meant to live on indefinitely.
Which is a long way of saying that an annual $790M hit to federal funding, plus debt service, plus an increase in tax rate on endowments, plus decreased income from international students is a real threat to long term viability of the school.
One huge difference is that when we take money from a retirement account it is taxed while when NU takes it out of the endowment it is not. Means a whole lot less has to be taken out to get the job done
The endowment is $15.6B. A meager return of 5% a covers the entire annual payout and actually adds a little to the Principal. I suspect the endowment balance has gone up after every fiscal year for decades. It appears it increased at approximately 10% from the previous year, enough to nearly cover both the current withdrawal and loss of federal funds without a reduction in principal.
NU has choices here. It can say screw you, like Harvard did and tap into its endowment. It would likely cause the suspension of some programs and further belt tightening, just like any family would with a reduction of income, but it would take many years to comprise the viability of the school. I have never seen the schools budget, nor do I care to review it, but I suspect like any budget there are “needs” and a whole lot of “wants”. This endowment isn’t going to run dry in our lifetime.
Or NU can comply with the two primary issues at hand like the University of Michigan did. The first issue is address the anti-semitism and protect harassment of Jewish students. NU supports this and has already claimed to have taken actions to eliminate this, so this shouldn’t be a show stopper. The second is the interpretation of the law around DEI programs. Universities can sign the certification of compliance with anti-discriminatory laws. Of course, the major bone of contention here is the interpretation of that law. This will likely end up in court. It’s become a battle of who has the biggest ****. Seems there are compromises that can be reached if both sides of the issue actually talk it out. It’s time for this country to end all the conservative versus liberal, left versus right, bulls**** and work together to find solutions instead of getting wins. Time for Mr. Schill to earn his income.
This was a discussion about the stadium that morphed into the always popular federal funding debate. I am sure my post will be capped. Maybe some others will too.
I am heartened to see the NU endowment has a relatively large payout annually. I was under the impression the money just sat there. IMO if some portion of the earnings aren't used constructively, they should be taxed. Pick a formula on what is appropriate.
I have said a few times I am surprised at how much Federal dollars drives fundamental research and corresponding facilities at universities. Everything is in the details but like anything else there isn't an endless money pit year after year so I don't buy into the view from 20k ft that anything that impacts research money is a bad thing. I do not, however, envy the researchers having to suck on the tit of Federal largesse. Not a great way to stay continually employed.
I have said a few times I am surprised at how much Federal dollars drives fundamental research and corresponding facilities at universities. Everything is in the details but like anything else there isn't an endless money pit year after year so I don't buy into the view from 20k ft that anything that impacts research money is a bad thing. I do not, however, envy the researchers having to suck on the tit of Federal largesse. Not a great way to stay continually employed.
That does not say why they would put it in a 35k seat stadiium rather that the 6500 seat venue right beside it
The federal dollars represent about $100k for every undergrad student, All tax free.. The returns from the endowment are something similar. So how exactly do they justify charging the tuition etc that they do?
The federal money isn't free cash. It buys summer salary of faculty, buys faculty time away from teaching obligations, it buys research assistants and equipment in the sciences. What's called "indirect cost recovery" which is part of the federal money, pays for the upkeep of the buildings and shares of administrative staff. So you can't just use that money for whatever you want. On the other hand, if you lose a research grant, you do fire some of the staff and avoid some of the expenses that would be entailed to do the research. I'm in my later career years and work on research grant money at my university (thankfully state and foundation grants) but if they go away, then I would go away, but it wouldn't impact my university's budget beyond the loss of the indirect.
I understand that that research money is not "free" I put it in there just for perspective. That said, it was interesting watching the nashing of teeth when they wanted to limit overhead to 15%
At research 1 universities there are revenue academic departments just like athletics has revenue sports. The revenue department professors are expected to deliver that indirect because it is somewhat unrestricted revenue for the university. Losing a major portion of that is indeed a problem.
