Stadium Expansion A Good Idea? Why was there an 8-2 Vote?

[Aaron Peters]

Aaron Peters, Razorback Nation Anchor:

"Welcome back to the program. Time now for the Razorback Nation roundtable discussion Bo Mattingly and Mike Irwin join me for this segment each week. We start with Hog football the north end zone stadium expansion. The board passed this 8-2 but leading up to there was some controversy and was some backlash from a couple of the board members. The pros and cons of the stadium expansion in your mind?

Bo Mattingly, Sports Talk W/Bo:

"I don't have any cons and I'm sure somebody that is watching will be able to give them to you but let me just lay if out for you. This is a stand alone business and they make their own money, the raise their own money and by the way they are profitable and they give the University of Arkansas money and what the did was come up with a business plan that is not only going to pay for itself but also make it a better situation for the University, the football team, the football program and for fans where there is a demand for premium tickets, there is not a demand for upper deck tickets Mike there is a premium demand and that demand is being met."

Mike Irwin, Razorback Nation Analyst:

"I thought former senator Pryor, I didn't think he came with a very good argument, I don't think he was very prepared because first of all he got the number of new seats wrong he said 3,000 there is going to be more like 4,800 but that was never the issue, the issue is, Frank Broyles figured this out when the did the original renovation."

Read full story here: http://www.nwahomepage.com/razorback-nation/stadium-expansion-a-good-idea-roundtable-discussion

[gawntrail]

Then to come back and suggest that somehow this would effect other schools which is what senator Pryor said. That is like saying should I give money to UA Monticello or get a luxury suite. The two don't have anything to do with each other so the people that will fund this project are not people that are going to pull money from other schools and leave then destitute. "

- from the link

Very good point.

[Sivad]

David Pryor is off his rocker.
He needs to be tested.

[M L (bassplayer)]

David Pryor is off his rocker.
He needs to be tested.

No, he made very good points. This is a large chunk of money that really doesn't provide anything for the regular fan or student, at a time when funding to institutions like UAMS is being squeezed. It's a tough time to be throwing that kind of money around.

[Sivad]

No, he made very good points. This is a large chunk of money that really doesn't provide anything for the regular fan or student, at a time when funding to institutions like UAMS is being squeezed.

A competitive and self sufficient football team certainly helps "the regular fan or student". And it is costing "institutions like UAMS" absolutely nothing.

[mizzouman]

Stadium expansions are always a good idea if it brings in additional revenue over the long term, the revenue is 'extra' revenue that would not be gained without the expansion, it adds to the game time experience and if it can be paid for without tax payer money, i.e., solely funded by the athletic department.

If these are met, then do it.

[ricepig]

No, he made very good points. This is a large chunk of money that really doesn't provide anything for the regular fan or student, at a time when funding to institutions like UAMS is being squeezed. It's a tough time to be throwing that kind of money around.

Maybe UAMS needs a better football team........Seriously, if you've looked into this at all, you'll see that our neighboring states put an extra $100M from the state coffers for their teaching hospitals, it's a state government problem, not the UofA system caused problem.

[hobhog]

Maybe UAMS needs a better football team........Seriously, if you've looked into this at all, you'll see that our neighboring states put an extra $100M from the state coffers for their teaching hospitals, it's a state government problem, not the UofA system caused problem.

Agreed. Some people just don't seem to realize how beneficial a strong athletic program is to a major state university. They try to sound like they have financially superior knowledge on the subject when in reality if they would research it at all they'd understand why this is happening.

[ChitownHawg]

No, he made very good points. This is a large chunk of money that really doesn't provide anything for the regular fan or student, at a time when funding to institutions like UAMS is being squeezed. It's a tough time to be throwing that kind of money around.

Uh I believe they said it was self funded.

[ChitownHawg]

Maybe UAMS needs a better football team........Seriously, if you've looked into this at all, you'll see that our neighboring states put an extra $100M from the state coffers for their teaching hospitals, it's a state government problem, not the UofA system caused problem.

The large university hospital schools up here have several things in common. A money making business college to bring cash into the school. Unlike science and medical departments - business colleges have extremely low overhead. So they bring in a lot of profit. UofC, Northwestern, and Loyola have top 10 business schools.

Then add on top all three hospitals are highly ranked in the US, so the best medical students want to attend.

Last point - no state is as screwed up as Illinois. The goobers in Springfield ran the State for the whole year without a signed budget. So none of these schools depends on state money.

I am not sure if UAMS uses this type of strategy.

[razoredge178]

Uh I believe they said it was self funded.

Self funded with $140 million borrowed bones. I guess you can call that self-funded. I'd call it self-debted.

[razoredge178]

Self funded with $140 million borrowed bones. I guess you can call that self-funded. I'd call it self-debted.

Folks in NWA need to tune into 92.1 the ticket at 7:20AM tomorrow/ Tuesday 06/21-- Josh Bertaccini will be interviewing Jeff Long. Unlike the soldier boys like Bo Mattingly, JB plans on asking lots of "frank" questions about the expansion. It should be a fantastic interview.

[3kgthog]

Waste of money at this point and time considering we never fill the stadium as is.

[kaki]

Self funded with $140 million borrowed bones. I guess you can call that self-funded. I'd call it self-debted.

Not sure of your point, but if the debt service is paid from athletic department revenues and foundation money, it would, in many people's opinion, be self funded.

[riccoar]

Uh I believe they said it was self funded.

If the UofA took in a dollar for every time this had to be repeated, it would have already been paid for.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

Waste of money at this point and time considering we never fill the stadium as is.

Stay home and it won't be your money being wasted.

[longpig]

Self funded with $140 million borrowed bones. I guess you can call that self-funded. I'd call it self-debted.

The tax payers don't pay off the note. 

[razoredge178]

The tax payers don't pay off the note.

Who's talking about taxpayers?

[ricepig]

Waste of money at this point and time considering we never fill the stadium as is.

We fill the club seats and suites, but you knew that.....

[ricepig]

Who's talking about taxpayers?

Taxpayers, we're talking about taxpayers, not the self-funded I love, but taxpayers.......

[Justifiable Hogicide]

David Pryor says he is worried about UA Monticello not getting their fair share of the income produced by the expansion.
I'm worried about David Pryor's mental health.

[Atlhogfan1]

Some reasons why the renovation and expansion is needed from the football program perspective:

[GuvHog]

We fill the club seats and suites, but you knew that.....

Yeah, the seats will be filled all right.....mostly by people who will abandon their good seats in other parts of the lower bowl and the U of A Athletic Department will have serious problems selling those $85 per game seats that will be abandoned since there is no demand for more regular bench seating.

I agree with the expansion but lets be honest about how those new club seats and luxury boxes will be filled.

[PonderinHog]

I think Orville said it best.

Win, and Arkansas fans will respond.

[hogs7199]

Yeah, the seats will be filled all right.....mostly by people who will abandon their good seats in other parts of the lower bowl and the U of A Athletic Department will have serious problems selling those $85 per game seats that will be abandoned since there is no demand for more regular bench seating.

I agree with the expansion but lets be honest about how those new club seats and luxury boxes will be filled.

I don't think that too many people will abandon prime lower level seating for endzone boxes.  Even if they do, there will be plenty of people that gill gladly step up and claim the newly available lower level seating.

[ricepig]

Yeah, the seats will be filled all right.....mostly by people who will abandon their good seats in other parts of the lower bowl and the U of A Athletic Department will have serious problems selling those $85 per game seats that will be abandoned since there is no demand for more regular bench seating.

I agree with the expansion but lets be honest about how those new club seats and luxury boxes will be filled.

Let's see Guv, there will be 600+ seat lost from the East Outdoor club, so that makes around 1600 hundred club seats left to fill, who knows where they will come from. The boxes and the Loge seating will more than likely come from current club level shareholders, opening up the opportunity for some to get seats there. The upper deck ticket holders will get the opportunity to have the lower level seats they have been clamoring for, and thusly opening up seats in the upper deck for newcomers. It's the circle of life thingy, Guv.

You know, we've been graduating around 4000 a year lately, lots of new alums to feed into the market. I had one just graduate and he took advantage of the new alum program to get season tickets in 107 I believe. There's always new ticket holders to replace those who quit buying.

[razoredge178]

Big difference is that most of the other SEC programs added substantial seating, general admin and higher $$ as well.

I think the rub for some folks is this $160M, 3000 seat expansion (almost $55 grand on a per seat basis) is 100% targeted at that 2-5% of high-end supporters and donors. You still have 50-60K crap bleacher seats that have to be addressed.

As said in another thread, just like our political system, we can't expect our top 2-5% of rich fans and donors to carry the load through the next 20+ years, just like we can't put all the tax burden on the super rich in our country. In fact, that's the huge problem, and far from the solution.

You d%$! well better figure out how improve those other 50K seats-- those are the folks that'll truly be the foundation of our program 20 years from now...and will be the big donors 20 years from now too!

[Vantage 8 dude]

First of all let me emphasize that not only am I an alum of the U of A, but a long time supporter of the athletic programs. Having said that, I honestly have to question whether or not this is the absolute best use of the monies available to the university.

Yes, I understand the need to remain competitive in the world of sports, especially at the ultra high level of the SEC. However, I also have to ask what is really gained by this particular project? IF we were having constant sell outs at every Fayetteville game and IF we were therefore being overrun by ticket requests/demands that were going unfulfilled because we didn't have the room then my first reaction would most definitely be "go for it" and never look back. However, the plain and simple truth is that this is NOT the case. And while I realize that Senator Pryor's figures may not have been totally accurate, the point that Tyson, Hodges and other former board members made in last week's Arkansas Democrat editorial piece concerning the absence of many sell outs since the latest stadium expansion some 15 or years ago is still relevant. Unfortunately a noticeable portion of this bond issues' proceeds will also be going for NON REVENUE purposes-such as underground parking for staff members-which will obviously NOT be of benefit to any fan or player. Sorry, but I seriously doubt the fact that a member of the coaching staff or administration may no longer have to worry about having to deal with moisture while entering or exiting their vehicle is going to be a major selling point when it comes to hiring(s).

The bottom line, as I said previously, is whether or not the U of A is getting the "biggest bang for its buck" for monies spent. Sorry, but on this one I can't agree that it is. Not when a portion of an incredible and unique tradition such as SENIOR WALK is crumbling and school officials aren't sure where they can come with the monies to replace the part in front of Old Main. Not when other facilities around campus need to be repaired, upgraded or replaced. Not when other off campus facilities such as UAMS are begging for monies to be able to meet current (and future) building code requirements.

The plain (sad) fact is that with the Arkansas legislature continuing to cut funding for state colleges and universities it behoves the citizens of this state to do even better and sober analysis when it comes to how the hard earned monies of those supporting the U of A is to be spent. After all, as pround as we should all be in all our sports programs, the REAL purpose of the Hill is to provide the absolute best EDUCATION  to prepare all its students to succeed in the world outside the college campus.

[GuvHog]

Let's see Guv, there will be 600+ seat lost from the East Outdoor club, so that makes around 1600 hundred club seats left to fill, who knows where they will come from. The boxes and the Loge seating will more than likely come from current club level shareholders, opening up the opportunity for some to get seats there. The upper deck ticket holders will get the opportunity to have the lower level seats they have been clamoring for, and thusly opening up seats in the upper deck for newcomers. It's the circle of life thingy, Guv.

You know, we've been graduating around 4000 a year lately, lots of new alums to feed into the market. I had one just graduate and he took advantage of the new alum program to get season tickets in 107 I believe. There's always new ticket holders to replace those who quit buying.

They are not doing away with all of the east outdoor club seats, just a good portion of those closer to the middle of the field and certainly not 600 of them.

[ricepig]

Big difference is that most of the other SEC programs added substantial seating, general admin and higher $$ as well.

I think the rub for some folks is this $160M, 3000 seat expansion (almost $55 grand on a per seat basis) is 100% targeted at that 2-5% of high-end supporters and donors. You still have 50-60K crap bleacher seats that have to be addressed.

As said in another thread, just like our political system, we can't expect our top 2-5% of rich fans and donors to carry the load through the next 20+ years, just like we can't put all the tax burden on the super rich in our country. In fact, that's the huge problem, and far from the solution.

You d%$! well better figure out how improve those other 50K seats-- those are the folks that'll truly be the foundation of our program 20 years from now...and will be the big donors 20 years from now too!

The actual cost of those 3000 seats is $45-46M, so, try again.


http://arkansasrazorbacks.com/dwrrs/questions.html

[Hawgar The Horrible]

They are not doing away with all of the east outdoor club seats, just a good portion of those closer to the middle of the field and certainly not 600 of them.

5 days ago you didn't know they changed the NEZ plans and now you're an expert?

[PonderinHog]

The actual cost of those 3000 seats is $45-46M, so, try again.


http://arkansasrazorbacks.com/dwrrs/questions.html

So that's the cost - $15,000/ea.  What's the average price for those seats, counting donations?

[GuvHog]

5 days ago you didn't know they changed the NEZ plans and now you're an expert?

It was in the announcement when they released the proposed plans some time ago.

[DiamondHogFan]

So that's the cost - $15,000/ea.  What's the average price for those seats, counting donations?

Probably enough that the $15k will be reached in a few years time.

[ricepig]

They are not doing away with all of the east outdoor club seats, just a good portion of those closer to the middle of the field and certainly not 600 of them.

637 seats Guv, don't guess on stuff above your pay grade.

[Atlhogfan1]

First of all let me emphasize that not only am I an alum of the U of A, but a long time supporter of the athletic programs. Having said that, I honestly have to question whether or not this is the absolute best use of the monies available to the university.

Yes, I understand the need to remain competitive in the world of sports, especially at the ultra high level of the SEC. However, I also have to ask what is really gained by this particular project? IF we were having constant sell outs at every Fayetteville game and IF we were therefore being overrun by ticket requests/demands that were going unfulfilled because we didn't have the room then my first reaction would most definitely be "go for it" and never look back. However, the plain and simple truth is that this is NOT the case. And while I realize that Senator Pryor's figures may not have been totally accurate, the point that Tyson, Hodges and other former board members made in last week's Arkansas Democrat editorial piece concerning the absence of many sell outs since the latest stadium expansion some 15 or years ago is still relevant. Unfortunately a noticeable portion of this bond issues' proceeds will also be going for NON REVENUE purposes-such as underground parking for staff members-which will obviously NOT be of benefit to any fan or player. Sorry, but I seriously doubt the fact that a member of the coaching staff or administration may no longer have to worry about having to deal with moisture while entering or exiting their vehicle is going to be a major selling point when it comes to hiring(s).

The bottom line, as I said previously, is whether or not the U of A is getting the "biggest bang for its buck" for monies spent. Sorry, but on this one I can't agree that it is. Not when a portion of an incredible and unique tradition such as SENIOR WALK is crumbling and school officials aren't sure where they can come with the monies to replace the part in front of Old Main. Not when other facilities around campus need to be repaired, upgraded or replaced. Not when other off campus facilities such as UAMS are begging for monies to be able to meet current (and future) building code requirements.

The plain (sad) fact is that with the Arkansas legislature continuing to cut funding for state colleges and universities it behoves the citizens of this state to do even better and sober analysis when it comes to how the hard earned monies of those supporting the U of A is to be spent. After all, as pround as we should all be in all our sports programs, the REAL purpose of the Hill is to provide the absolute best EDUCATION  to prepare all its students to succeed in the world outside the college campus.

The problem with your point of view is you are taking a stance that this $160 million exists or would be available to use on those things you mentioned.  It doesn't and wouldn't.  It is going to exist because the athletic department can pay it.  So your post is basically a waste of time as your scenario wouldn't happen. 

[Pig in the Pokey]

No, he made very good points. This is a large chunk of money that really doesn't provide anything for the regular fan or student, at a time when funding to institutions like UAMS is being squeezed. It's a tough time to be throwing that kind of money around.

why would football care about uams or ua-monticello? S Ar needs to fund their own damn selves.

[ricepig]

So that's the cost - $15,000/ea.  What's the average price for those seats, counting donations?

I've not been told a final price, but I think I'd be safe in saying as high, or higher than the current SOC and suite seats, which are published

[GuvHog]

637 seats Guv, don't guess on stuff above your pay grade.

Link??

[Atlhogfan1]

Big difference is that most of the other SEC programs added substantial seating, general admin and higher $$ as well.

I think the rub for some folks is this $160M, 3000 seat expansion (almost $55 grand on a per seat basis) is 100% targeted at that 2-5% of high-end supporters and donors. You still have 50-60K crap bleacher seats that have to be addressed.

As said in another thread, just like our political system, we can't expect our top 2-5% of rich fans and donors to carry the load through the next 20+ years, just like we can't put all the tax burden on the super rich in our country. In fact, that's the huge problem, and far from the solution.

You d%$! well better figure out how improve those other 50K seats-- those are the folks that'll truly be the foundation of our program 20 years from now...and will be the big donors 20 years from now too!

It isn't addressing those people.  Those people are paying for a large part of it.  That is where our demand is.  We don't have the fan base many of the others do. 

How do you propose to improve those other seats?  Tear out the infrastructure and rebuild?

[PonderinHog]

I've not been told a final price, but I think I'd be safe in saying as high, or higher than the current SOC and suite seats, which are published

So somewhere between $850 and $2,400 per year? Am I reading that right?  Payback of around 5 - 18 years?  No agenda here, just curious.

[Pig in the Pokey]

Big difference is that most of the other SEC programs added substantial seating, general admin and higher $$ as well.

I think the rub for some folks is this $160M, 3000 seat expansion (almost $55 grand on a per seat basis) is 100% targeted at that 2-5% of high-end supporters and donors. You still have 50-60K crap bleacher seats that have to be addressed.

As said in another thread, just like our political system, we can't expect our top 2-5% of rich fans and donors to carry the load through the next 20+ years, just like we can't put all the tax burden on the super rich in our country. In fact, that's the huge problem, and far from the solution.

You d%$! well better figure out how improve those other 50K seats-- those are the folks that'll truly be the foundation of our program 20 years from now...and will be the big donors 20 years from now too!

we most definitely COULD put the tax burden on the 2% in this country. They are robbing us blind with all this inequality and welfare for the rich. So sick of idiots defending the rich while everyone else gets it in the arse. Just stupid.

[bphi11ips]

I think Orville said it best.

Orville was a smart man.

[Vantage 8 dude]

The problem with your point of view is you are taking a stance that this $160 million exists or would be available to use on those things you mentioned.  It doesn't and wouldn't.  It is going to exist because the athletic department can pay it.  So your post is basically a waste of time as your scenario wouldn't happen.

Fine, you obviously have a different point and view and I can appreciate and honor that. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that my thoughts and opinions (or anyone else's) is "crap". Duh, let's take a scenario where that same $160 million (or whatever) bond issue is "floated" for the primary purpose of improving/replacing or whatever some of the facilities used for general student education rather than merely the use of athletic purposes. The subsequent improvement for the greater student population would be much more useful under the circumstances. Again, with only a finite amount of monies available for any and all purposes I'm just concerned as to whether this is necessarily the best route to go.

BTW for your particular information/edification you're totally off base and wrong when it comes to bond issue not going over for nonathletic purposes. I've personally been involved with the underwriting and selling of at least three issuances of notes and bonds from the U of A designated for non sports related purposes. The issues were oversubscribed-the demand exceeded the supply-by folks wanting to participate. Unfortunately those particular instances were done in better economic times and without competition from other U of A related building projects. Then again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.....

[PonderinHog]

Orville was a smart man.

This ain't rocket surgery, is it?

[Inhogswetrust]

No, he made very good points. This is a large chunk of money that really doesn't provide anything for the regular fan or student, at a time when funding to institutions like UAMS is being squeezed. It's a tough time to be throwing that kind of money around.

The people spending money on it would not spend it on other schools athletic programs or academics either. I bet nobody will quit donating money to academics as they have been to use that same money just to get these new seats.

[gawntrail]

we most definitely COULD put the tax burden on the 2% in this country. They are robbing us blind with all this inequality and welfare for the rich. So sick of idiots defending the rich while everyone else gets it in the arse. Just stupid.

Define 'rich' so I have some perspective.... 

[Atlhogfan1]

Fine, you obviously have a different point and view and I can appreciate and honor that. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that my thoughts and opinions (or anyone else's) is "crap". Duh, let's take a scenario where that same $160 million (or whatever) bond issue is "floated" for the primary purpose of improving/replacing or whatever some of the facilities used for general student education rather than merely the use of athletic purposes. The subsequent improvement for the greater student population would be much more useful under the circumstances. Again, with only a finite amount of monies available for any and all purposes I'm just concerned as to whether this is necessarily the best route to go.

BTW for your particular information/edification you're totally off base and wrong when it comes to bond issue not going over for nonathletic purposes. I've personally been involved with the underwriting and selling of at least three issuances of notes and bonds from the U of A designated for non sports related purposes. The issues were oversubscribed-the demand exceeded the supply-by folks wanting to participate. Unfortunately those particular instances were done in better economic times and without competition from other U of A related building projects. Then again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.....

I'm not the one ranting. Who is going to pay your bond?  The athl dept?  What is stopping the UA system from doing as you say?  I am fully aware univ take out bonds for non athl.

Again you are taking a viewpoint that this is going to athl when it could go to other things which isnt reality. Those paying for it are doing so for football. They arent going to just give in this instance and say spend it on whatever like uams or uam.

[razoredge178]

The actual cost of those 3000 seats is $45-46M, so, try again.


http://arkansasrazorbacks.com/dwrrs/questions.html

Short bus does circles around your house huh?

[Justifiable Hogicide]

Those paying for it are doing so for football. They arent going to just give in this instance and say spend it on whatever like uams or uam.

A simple concept. Amazing it is ungrasped by anybody.