I just don't think that cooperation between the city and UAB to build a stadium is contingent on the city receiving a lion's share of the revenue. If UAB's portion of the cost to build the facility is substantial enough, it would automatically have an important seat at the table. Also, it's not as if the revenue sharing, operations, ownership, etc... situation would automatically be the same with a new shared facility as it is currently with Legion Field. I just don't see how it would be impossible for UAB to successfully win priority scheduling, favorable concession revenues (for their home games if nothing else), and other things. Sure, at face value, it might look like an uneasy relationship with the city and the school bargaining for favorable revenue sharing, but these are the relationships the city and school have to be able to maintain if the city wants to continue the region's economic dominance in the state. UAB is an economic powerhouse, and Birmingham (BJCC, or whoever) would be be crazy if they allowed something as trivial as concession revenue or scheduling to taint a mutually beneficial relationship.
Of course, all of the above isn't even to mention the fact that support for the BJCC MPF (which is already pretty low among the public) would be diminished if UAB were to build an OCS by itself. Nothing will bring out an Alabama naysayer more than something they perceive to be redundant.
I just don't see why a partnership in this respect can't be an option (I say can't because I've heard no one mention it).
Hell, I think it'd be great if the facility were built in the same location UAB proposed for their OCS. The BJCC could just use the land set aside now for the MPF for additional convention space, the city needs more of it anyway. The gap created between this theoretical on-campus MPF would create an excellent spine for the first phase of a streetcar or light rail system that connects the BJCC, CBD, 20th St corridor, Railroad Park, Regions Field, and UAB without having to go out of the way at all.
|