Local programming pays the light bill; tournament tourism pays the debt. The two demand engines need separate analysis and honest weighting.
Large sports complexes run two demand engines with different economics. Local programming — leagues, practices, lessons, memberships — is recurring, rate-sensitive, and bounded by the drive-time population’s participation math. Tournament and event business is destination economics: team-nights from outside the market, court- and field-rental at event rates, and the hospitality spillover that makes municipalities co-investors. A credible study sizes each engine independently, because the failure mode is familiar: tournament calendars assumed full from year one while local programming was priced to subsidize them. Sizing the two engines separately, and grading the booking evidence behind the tournament side, is the core of a sports complex and tournament facility feasibility study.
Facility configuration is strategy: court counts and convertibility, turf versus hardwood, spectator capacity, and the support amenities tournament directors actually select venues on. The competitive frame is regional — tournament-capable facilities compete across state lines — and the booking evidence (sanctioning relationships, letters of intent from event operators) is the demand exhibit that separates fundable projects from renderings.
The firm’s practice spans the category’s full scale — from club-format racquet facilities to complexes at $115,000,000 and a 40,000-word analytical engagement for a multi-sport dome — with economic-impact analysis prepared alongside feasibility where public participation requires both documents to agree.
Engagements are typically initiated by the borrower, with lender or CDC confirmation obtained before work begins — institutions apply differing rules, so sponsors should confirm the required path with their lending contact — and are delivered in 10 to 15 business days from complete project data, and built to the program framework that governs the credit — SBA SOP 50 10 8 coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global, the 37-factor structure of USDA 7 CFR Part 5001, or the 1.20x convention of conventional credit policy — with a ten-year pro forma, sensitivity at ±5/10/15 percent, rate stress to +3.0 percent, and Monte Carlo analysis as standard equipment.
President, Wert-Berater, Inc. — independent feasibility study consultants since 1998. 4,000+ engagements completed across all 50 states and internationally, evaluating $41.2 billion in project value for SBA, USDA, EB-5, conventional, and institutional financing decisions. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and agency in every engagement.
+1 310-857-2443 ext. 800 · email · 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 · 111 Town Square Pl Ste 1238 PMB 657834, Jersey City, NJ 07310 · 539 W. Commerce St #8486, Dallas, TX 75208 · 66 W Flagler Street, Suite 900, PMB 12704, Miami, FL 33130
Schedule a ConversationIndependent feasibility studies since 1998 — 4,000+ engagements, $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. Standard delivery in 10 to 15 business days. Fiduciary duty to the lender and agency.
Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.