ADVERTISEMENT

What is an reasonable subsidary for WSU to provide to Athletics...

Thanks for your contribution.

How, oh great and powerful, self-appointed genius of all geniuses, was WSU going to save money? Be specific. It's easy to say something should cost less with nothing to back it up. As repeatedly stated throughout this thread, the FOB was scaled back to save money.

And you don't read worth a damn. Casanova houses the football locker rooms- those ones that were getting all the media for having Xboxes in like 2003. Where are the WSU locker rooms? Hint- in the FOB. Lots of other football in Casanova too.

Uh, the article on the new Oregon building Flat links shows pictures of.....THE NEW LOCKER ROOM. Geezus - I don't think its me who can't (or won't) read.

WSU's locker room was in Bohler before the FOB. Oregon's was in Casanova before their new FB. Capiche?


 
Uh, the article on the new Oregon building Flat links shows pictures of.....THE NEW LOCKER ROOM. Geezus - don't think its me who can't (or won't) read.

WSU's locker room was in Bohler before the FOB. Oregon's was in Casanova before their new FB. Capiche?


Oh. Thanks of wise and glorious one. It was still an addition to the football facilities Oregon already had. Read the links. Read them.

And you've still not specifically stated what should have been done to lower the price of the FOB. Again, it's easy to say something that costs a lot of money should be cheaper, but you're not explaining how or why.
 
Oh. Thanks of wise and glorious one. It was still an addition to the football facilities Oregon already had. Read the links. Read them.

And you've still not specifically stated what should have been done to lower the price of the FOB. Again, it's easy to say something that costs a lot of money should be cheaper, but you're not explaining how or why.

I read the links. And pointed out your glaring error on the locker room. You are welcome.

I don't know what could or should have been done to save money on the FOB. I'd have to sit and research what we built, and compare and contrast it to the other, less expensive facilities that others built. Not going to put that much effort into it. At this point, we have what we have and spent what we spent. I'm ready to drop this particular debate and move on. Peace.
 
I read the links. And pointed out your glaring error on the locker room. You are welcome.

I don't know what could or should have been done to save money on the FOB. I'd have to sit and research what we built, and compare and contrast it to the other, less expensive facilities that others built. Not going to put that much effort into it. At this point, we have what we have and spent what we spent. I'm ready to drop this particular debate and move on. Peace.

That's a good boy...
 
Oh. Thanks of wise and glorious one. It was still an addition to the football facilities Oregon already had. Read the links. Read them.

And you've still not specifically stated what should have been done to lower the price of the FOB. Again, it's easy to say something that costs a lot of money should be cheaper, but you're not explaining how or why.

FWIW, I don't think anyone is claiming to be wise and glorious. FWIW, after looking a bit more, it sounds like Oregon's cost of their new FOB ballooned to $138 million before it was done, so the only FOB in the country that passes us in cost per sf is the one funded by NIKE money that everyone agrees is ridiculously over the top. I don't have the bid tabulations for the project and we don't know all the details, but the fact that we paid 50% more than average suggests that we didn't get a good deal on the building. When you look at BSU, UAB and schools like that, you see buildings in the size range of ours for $22-25 million. All bullsh!t aside, that means we spent a lot of money that we didn't "NEED" to. Did we get a nicer building that will be a better selling point? Better hope we did for the extra $40 million we spent.
 
FWIW, I don't think anyone is claiming to be wise and glorious. FWIW, after looking a bit more, it sounds like Oregon's cost of their new FOB ballooned to $138 million before it was done, so the only FOB in the country that passes us in cost per sf is the one funded by NIKE money that everyone agrees is ridiculously over the top. I don't have the bid tabulations for the project and we don't know all the details, but the fact that we paid 50% more than average suggests that we didn't get a good deal on the building. When you look at BSU, UAB and schools like that, you see buildings in the size range of ours for $22-25 million. All bullsh!t aside, that means we spent a lot of money that we didn't "NEED" to. Did we get a nicer building that will be a better selling point? Better hope we did for the extra $40 million we spent.

What average are you citing? The average of the facilities that you cherry picked? The FOB was scaled back. Lots of people complained about the "single wide" on the roof right while the construction was wrapping up because it looked low class and cheap. Now people like you are complaining it cost too much.

You're just jumping on the budget axe bandwagon now. Cool.
 
FWIW, I don't think anyone is claiming to be wise and glorious. FWIW, after looking a bit more, it sounds like Oregon's cost of their new FOB ballooned to $138 million before it was done, so the only FOB in the country that passes us in cost per sf is the one funded by NIKE money that everyone agrees is ridiculously over the top. I don't have the bid tabulations for the project and we don't know all the details, but the fact that we paid 50% more than average suggests that we didn't get a good deal on the building. When you look at BSU, UAB and schools like that, you see buildings in the size range of ours for $22-25 million. All bullsh!t aside, that means we spent a lot of money that we didn't "NEED" to. Did we get a nicer building that will be a better selling point? Better hope we did for the extra $40 million we spent.
Do you know if, since this was a state job and WA has one of the higher wages, if this was a "prevailing" job for the unions?
 
Last edited:
Do you know if, since this was a state job and WA has one of the higher wages, if this was a "prevailing" job for the unions?

One of the reasons that construction costs in Washington are higher than other states. But, don't bother Flatland with anything other than cost per square foot.

I'm sure it was prevailing wage. All state construction projects are. And this is a valid point - it does indeed cost more, wage-wise, to build things in Washington.

Bu I thought we were done with this argument? o_O You guys are starting to remind me of Ed. Gotta...get...that...last....word....in. Like I am trying to do with this post!!!:D:D:D
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT