Either way, could be a negotiating tactic? Time will tell.He really didn't say anything in that statement other than everything is going according to plan. The things he is referring to were not defined.
Still prefer this as opposed to making any definitive statements before a contract has been signed.
They are going to add larger modular visiting locker rooms (south end of stadium), more substantial endzone seating, and chairbacks and padded seats to the East (visitors) grandstands.The current stadium is FBS ready now. What else are they going to add that will be torn down?
My opinion is that this FBS invite makes revenue bonds a much easier ask. As JV, there was enough data to know that the revenue generation side of things would never pencil out. Our revenues were nearly capped at the JV level. With FBS status, the revenue generation side of the equation is much more favorable.Being admitted to FBS this year has allowed Sac State slow down and do the stadium right. Not rushed. Might even be able to increase the budget.
It explains why the school went silent on the stadium plans last October/November. The timeline shifted, but for the right reasons.
Agree 110%. Why would CSU issue bonds against a property that is not CSU controlled? Wont happen.I hope this means the track-less on-campus option happens. I say this because I have a hard time seeing the CSU green light some revenue bonds on non-CSU owned property. Time will tell.