Stadium Advisory Committee Market Analysis and Funding Sources Subcommittee Readout March 29, 2012 1
Agenda Review Subcommittee Charter Review Subcommittee Membership Review Subcommittee Deliverables Review Subcommittee Timeline Update on Deliverables in Process Questions 2
Charter Review all market research/market data to be provided by the project advisory firm for potential funding sources Review reports from internal and external sources relative to naming rights, options for corporate support, opportunities for ticket and premium venue sales, donor enthusiasm and general support for fund-raising Make a recommendation related to feasibility of raising sufficient funds to support the construction of a multi-use facility on-campus including key funding sources and suggested strategies to accomplish. Provide a collective funding projection range. 3
Membership Chair: Brett Anderson Committee: Eric Berlinberg Todd Donavan Rudy Garcia Mike LaPlante Colleen Meyer Tom Milligan Darshan Shah 4
Deliverables Gift pyramid with overall fundraising projected range Naming right analysis with projected revenue range Potential Personal Seat License revenue projection range Club/Suite sales revenue projection range Potential construction fund ticket fee projection and ticket price comparison with peer schools in MW and C-USA as well as land grant peers Other revenue source projections (only if included in multi purpose stadium) residence hall income, condo sales, alumni center components, new media/interactive sponsorship opportunities Funding plan comparison with other D1 stadiums (past ~10 years + upcoming) 5
Timeline Start End Gift Pyramid Now April SAC meeting Naming rights analysis - preliminary March April SAC meeting PSL/Club/Suite projections Now April SAC meeting Naming right analysis final* March May SAC meeting Construction fund/ other revenues Now May SAC meeting Funding Comparison April May SAC Meeting 6
Gift Feasibility Process Gift Pyramid Developed a prospect pool from current athletic donors, past athletic donors, donors with athletic interest, season ticket holder non-donors and former student athletes. Within the next month we will be identifying prospects currently unaffiliated with the University. The process will not be targeting exclusive academic donors. Developed a gift capability for each prospect that includes a potential ask amount and an estimated probability of success (%) Categorized prospects into gift ranges based on potential ask amount including $25M+, $10-25M, $5-$10, $1-5M, $500k-1M, $250-500k, $100-250k, $50-100k, $25-50k, $10-25k, $5-10k, under $5k Applying campaign fundraising principles to derive high and low ranges for both quantity and value of successful asks by category. 7
Seating/Funding Models Premium Seating/Funding Model Research We have begun researching fellow MW and CUSA schools, CU as well as our APLU land grant peer institutions including; Auburn, Iowa State, Mississippi State, Kansas State, North Carolina State, Oklahoma State, Purdue, Tennessee, UC Davis, Virginia Tech, Washington State, Texas A&M, Michigan State and Illinois. Seeking comparative data on personal seat licenses, premium level seat donation requirements, club seat and suite pricing and terms. Looking at additional events as a source of revenue Other potential events at the stadium include wedding receptions, proms, high school sporting events, auctions, small concerts, classes (exec. MBA), banquets, holiday parties, conferences, etc. From the other stadium research, we can expect between 20~300 events other than football per year. Potential revenue ranges from $50,000 ~ $500,000/ year. We are also gathering funding plan data from schools that have recently built (or are planning to build)new stadiums or have done major renovations including Stanford, North Texas, Washington, Cal, Florida Atlantic, Central Florida, Tulane, Oklahoma State, TCU, Minnesota, Houston, Baylor and North Carolina. 8
Questions Questions University Advancement 9