[Farm93]

Wow,

As a Stanford alum I find UCB and UCB AD's pathetic organizational skills laughable.
As a California citizen I find UCB, UCB AD and the UC Regents handling of finances disturbing.

Pledges were treated as equivalent to sales in 2010.
Now in 2013 the non-binding agreements are lumped into the sales category.

The incentives to inflate the commitment numbers were, and are still, startling, but no one was trying to deceive here.  At least that is the spin presented by the SJMN.

I almost don't want to know exactly how much money has really been provided to the UCBAD, because I know it will be pathetic.  Still, I feel the UC Regents demand that number and/or should make that figure public ASAP.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_235...ost_viewed

[Farm93]

Wow,

As a Stanford alum I find UCB and UCB AD's pathetic organizational skills laughable.
As a California citizen I find UCB, UCB AD and the UC Regents handling of finances disturbing.

Pledges were treated as equivalent to sales in 2010.
Now in 2013 the non-binding agreements are lumped into the sales category.

The incentives to inflate the commitment numbers were, and are still, startling, but no one was trying to deceive here.  At least that is the spin presented by the SJMN.

I almost don't want to know exactly how much money has really been provided to the UCBAD, because I know it will be pathetic.  Still, I feel the UC Regents demand that number and/or should make that figure public ASAP.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_235...ost_viewed

[Bruce Wang]

Stephen Colbert would describe these figures as truthy.

[Bruce Wang]

Stephen Colbert would describe these figures as truthy.

[yvonne]

A review of dozens of stadium-related interviews, memos and reports from 2009-11 found no evidence that Cal engaged in fraud.

um, wut?

[yvonne]

A review of dozens of stadium-related interviews, memos and reports from 2009-11 found no evidence that Cal engaged in fraud.

um, wut?

[rudruff]

No fraud, but a disturbing trend in quotes from former UCB execs.

[rudruff]

No fraud, but a disturbing trend in quotes from former UCB execs.

[71Bear]

As a Berkeley alum, I find the entire situation appalling.  Having said that, I think that John Wilton is making a "best effort" to clean up the mess.  Finally, the numbers that are now available are a true reflections of the current picture (and they are grim).

[71Bear]

As a Berkeley alum, I find the entire situation appalling.  Having said that, I think that John Wilton is making a "best effort" to clean up the mess.  Finally, the numbers that are now available are a true reflections of the current picture (and they are grim).

[rudruff]

1. No Arrillaga to squeeze a dime out of each nickel on construction costs.
2. Tree sitter donations by people offended by Cal trolls on internet boards holding things up.
3. Dreaming big and planning to build while the Cal program was at its highest point in 50 years.


I wish I took more pleasure in this, but the taxpayer in me cringes. Would prefer all the money comes out of wealthy Cal alums.

[rudruff]

1. No Arrillaga to squeeze a dime out of each nickel on construction costs.
2. Tree sitter donations by people offended by Cal trolls on internet boards holding things up.
3. Dreaming big and planning to build while the Cal program was at its highest point in 50 years.


I wish I took more pleasure in this, but the taxpayer in me cringes. Would prefer all the money comes out of wealthy Cal alums.

[jacketree]

Not 71 Bear but:




Do not discount the Arrillaga discount. I've seen that first hand.  And the upper deck of Stanford Stadium is cheap construction.

[jacketree]

Not 71 Bear but:




Do not discount the Arrillaga discount. I've seen that first hand.  And the upper deck of Stanford Stadium is cheap construction.

[OutsiderFan]

Not 71 Bear but:




Do not discount the Arrillaga discount. I've seen that first hand.  And the upper deck of Stanford Stadium is cheap construction.

If it's been said once, it's been said dozens of times.  Cal refused to build a stadium at a different location and raze Memorial because they value holding on to nostalgia (stadium in honor of dead soldiers who fought WWI) more than they do financial responsibility.  So the powers that be at the school decided it was worth it to spend about $200 million more than they had just to be able to preserve the outer facade of the stadium and continue with a stadium bisecting an earthquake fault.  They probably wanted to preserve "Tightwad Hill" too, quite the irony when you consider Cal was anything but "tighwad-ish" when it came to renovating and retrofitting CMS.

IMO, they should have razed CMS and built a new stadium on the Edwards Track Stadium site.  That would have created its own problems, but they wouldn't have come with an extra $200 million cost.

[OutsiderFan]

Not 71 Bear but:




Do not discount the Arrillaga discount. I've seen that first hand.  And the upper deck of Stanford Stadium is cheap construction.

If it's been said once, it's been said dozens of times.  Cal refused to build a stadium at a different location and raze Memorial because they value holding on to nostalgia (stadium in honor of dead soldiers who fought WWI) more than they do financial responsibility.  So the powers that be at the school decided it was worth it to spend about $200 million more than they had just to be able to preserve the outer facade of the stadium and continue with a stadium bisecting an earthquake fault.  They probably wanted to preserve "Tightwad Hill" too, quite the irony when you consider Cal was anything but "tighwad-ish" when it came to renovating and retrofitting CMS.

IMO, they should have razed CMS and built a new stadium on the Edwards Track Stadium site.  That would have created its own problems, but they wouldn't have come with an extra $200 million cost.

[71Bear]

Garvin:  Jacketree nailed it.  The seismic retrofit accounted for over half the total cost of renovating the stadium.

As for the point made by Outsider Fan, other sites were evaluated and rejected, including Edwards Stadium and property near GGF in Albany.  Realistically, the only choice was to renovate Memorial.  The mistake that was made relates to the notion that fans/corporations woud snap up the ESP seats.  As we have seen in the past, even winning teams at Stanford and UC have failed to consistently sell all the existing inventory of tickets.  There is not now, nor will there ever be a long term relationship between the non-alums and the two major college programs in the Bay Area.  The pros are too well entrenched and the population is too transient to make that a reality.  This is neither Tuscaloosa or Lincoln...

[71Bear]

Garvin:  Jacketree nailed it.  The seismic retrofit accounted for over half the total cost of renovating the stadium.

As for the point made by Outsider Fan, other sites were evaluated and rejected, including Edwards Stadium and property near GGF in Albany.  Realistically, the only choice was to renovate Memorial.  The mistake that was made relates to the notion that fans/corporations woud snap up the ESP seats.  As we have seen in the past, even winning teams at Stanford and UC have failed to consistently sell all the existing inventory of tickets.  There is not now, nor will there ever be a long term relationship between the non-alums and the two major college programs in the Bay Area.  The pros are too well entrenched and the population is too transient to make that a reality.  This is neither Tuscaloosa or Lincoln...

[LuckE2Bhere]

Several credible points there 71 Bear (I love that you participate in this Board), but I can't help but think those other site considerations were red herrings.  Very common for folks to throw up some fairly obviously flawed alternatives to justify selecting the choice they wanted to make all along... particularly when they're spending someone else's money, with no personal consequences (i.e., governmental spending).  Did they really consider ALL of the alternatives?  I doubt it.  :'(

[LuckE2Bhere]

Several credible points there 71 Bear (I love that you participate in this Board), but I can't help but think those other site considerations were red herrings.  Very common for folks to throw up some fairly obviously flawed alternatives to justify selecting the choice they wanted to make all along... particularly when they're spending someone else's money, with no personal consequences (i.e., governmental spending).  Did they really consider ALL of the alternatives?  I doubt it.  :'(