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

[razoredge178]

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?

Feasibility study would come first, as with any large-scope project. I doubt demolition of current infrastructure would have to be done, but its anyone's guess until the athletic department explores the idea.

Jeff Long is going to be asked questions about this specific idea (removing bleachers, adding chairbacks) tomorrow at 7:20AM on 92.1 the Ticket.

[PonderinHog]

A simple concept. Amazing it is ungrasped by anybody.

It ain't the interest on the bonds that upsets me, it's the principal of the damn thing! 

[WilsonHog]

There are two fairly straightforward doses of reality here that folks might as well accept.

(1) College athletics are about generating money.

(2) Those fans who can afford to give the most money will get the best perks.

Harsh, but that doesn't make it less true.

[gawntrail]

It ain't the interest on the bonds that upsets me, it's the principal of the damn thing!

Why?

[ricepig]

Short bus does circles around your house huh?

I guess you can't read, you must have missed the bus entirely, bless you.

Question #4

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

[ricepig]

Link??

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

Question #3

[razoredge178]

I guess you can't read, you must have missed the bus entirely, bless you.

No what was missed is the POINT, by yourself. Quite typical for you, thus my assumption that you have your own suite on the short bus.

You can bust the $160M ($220M by the time all the rampant overspending and abuse occurs) into any subset you'd like. At the conclusion of this project, the department will have spent a couple hundred million dollars and will have added 3-4K seats. When business talks about $spend$, its typically distributed by a unit of measure. In the case of arenas, stadiums, race tracks, and other venues that host people as the primary source of revenue, spend such as this project is usually distributed by increased (or decreased) head count, or capacity. So while folks like yourself might go, "well wait, they also switched out all the 42'' TV's and put up 60" TV's..."...that's not how they measure the investment because the 60'' TV doesn't generate revenue. The seat, or seats, around it, does.

Does this make sense for you? Maybe we could talk in candy bars, or gumballs if that helps?

[WilsonHog]

If the two of you can't discuss this issue without hurling insults, I will remove your ability to participate in the conversation.

[gawntrail]

I'm starting to get the feeling a significant portion of the opposition to this project is a shakedown.  Maybe a few construction outfits contacted one of their boys to start shaking trees because they ain't getting their beaks moistened with a sweet drink of that $160MM.  I see tons of construction, both private and public, going on all over NWA.... I don't know about the rest of the state.... But, all this growth in NWA must be driving those unsuccessful bidders absolutely nutso. 

[ricepig]

No what was missed is the POINT, by yourself. Quite typical for you, thus my assumption that you have your own suite on the short bus.

You can bust the $160M ($220M by the time all the rampant overspending and abuse occurs) into any subset you'd like. At the conclusion of this project, the department will have spent a couple hundred million dollars and will have added 3-4K seats. When business talks about $spend$, its typically distributed by a unit of measure. In the case of arenas, stadiums, race tracks, and other venues that host people as the primary source of revenue, spend such as this project is usually distributed by increased (or decreased) head count, or capacity. So while folks like yourself might go, "well wait, they also switched out all the 42'' TV's and put up 60" TV's..."...that's not how they measure the investment because the 60'' TV doesn't generate revenue. The seat, or seats, around it, does.

Does this make sense for you? Maybe we could talk in candy bars, or gumballs if that helps?

I'm not sure why you've degraded the argument to name calling, I guess because your point is wrong. So, you are attributing the cost of upgrading all the existing suites/club areas, new locker room, BAC, parking, elevators, and such to the cost of the new seats/suites? Do you work for a defense contractor? 

[GuvHog]

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

Question #3

So let me get this straight. They are taking seats from fans who are currently paying $125 to $150 each for them and hoping they'll agree to move to new north end zone outdoor club seats that they would pay even more for?? Yeah, that'll go over really well.

[ricepig]

So let me get this straight. They are taking seats from fans who are currently paying $125 to $150 each for them and hoping they'll agree to move to new north end zone outdoor club seats that they would pay even more for?? Yeah, that'll go over really well.

Yes, it is.

[GuvHog]

Yes, it is.

It hasn't yet. It may however, when the time comes.

[ricepig]

If the two of you can't discuss this issue without hurling insults, I will remove your ability to participate in the conversation.

Well, I didn't start it this time, lol. He can continue on, if he so chooses.

[ricepig]

It hasn't yet. It may however, when the time comes.

Some from other sections will want to be in the North End Zone, they'll have the options to move as their RF level allows for them to.

[razoredge178]

I'm not sure why you've degraded the argument to name calling, I guess because your point is wrong. So, you are attributing the cost of upgrading all the existing suites/club areas, new locker room, BAC, parking, elevators, and such to the cost of the new seats/suites? Do you work for a defense contractor?

Its not called attributing, its called distributing. And yes, business's, particularly athletic programs, that have a primary (or sole) source of revenue generated by admissions, distribute both revenue and expenses by head count. So if you spend five bucks, and add two seats, the business output would be the incremental cost of that seat expansion is $2.50 per seat.

If you add 4K seats, at a cost of $200M, that's $50K per seat. You can shake and bake it however you like, but that's how the numbers are typically analyzed.

[ArkansasI]

We should have bowled Razorback Stadium before constructing the upper decks.  I recall the legendary promise to keep the south end zone open to the beautiful view of the mountains... It was pretty, but I prefer what has been created.

Things have always been congested within the interior of the stadium - particularly on the west side.  Had we bowled the stadium first, I believe that the money might now be spent creating a promenade (or whatever you'd call it) over Razorback Road that would include concessions and bathrooms in an open area rather than within the narrow corridors of the stadium walls.  I'm amazed that we haven't lost a few fans over the railings under the seats.

I like the aesthetic that this addition offers.  It will make the stadium more attractive.  But the real work is improving the fan experience on the west side.  Entry gates could extend to the parking lot that is already in place and would drive some pedestrian traffic to the Alumni House. 

[GuvHog]

Some from other sections will want to be in the North End Zone, they'll have the options to move as their RF level allows for them to.

The only outdoor club seats left in the stadium will be in the end zones and a lot of those that have had those east side outdoor club seats since they were built aren't going to like having to pay a higher price for an end zone seat or settle for regular bench seating. I certainly hope it works out as well as the proponents of the project believe it will but I have my doubts. Fans moving to the north end zone will leave a lot of lower bowl bench seats to be filled when you yourself and others have repeatedly said there is no demand for them.

[ricepig]

Its not called attributing, its called distributing. And yes, business's, particularly athletic programs, that have a primary (or sole) source of revenue generated by admissions, distribute expenses by head count. So if you spend five bucks, and add two seats, the business output would be the incremental costs of that seat expansion is $2.50.

So, as in my post, had we spent $120M on all the above, without adding on any seats, you would have distributed the cost to the existing 72,000 seats?

[razoredge178]

Its not called attributing, its called distributing. And yes, business's, particularly athletic programs, that have a primary (or sole) source of revenue generated by admissions, distribute both revenue and expenses by head count. So if you spend five bucks, and add two seats, the business output would be the incremental cost of that seat expansion is $2.50 per seat.

If you add 4K seats, at a cost of $200M, that's $50K per seat. You can shake and bake it however you like, but that's how the numbers are typically analyzed.

Might I add that's why in other threads we see that basketball hangs their hat on ticket sales, not actual attendance, b/c it makes the whole financial piece look much, much better.

[razoredge178]

So, as in my post, had we spent $120M on all the above, without adding on any seats, you would have distributed the cost to the existing 72,000 seats?

Yes, because the seats are the primary revenue source by which the $XXXXXX is being paid for. $5 bucks, or $500,000,000.

Didn't Tennessee do that with their BB facility? Spent a truck ton of money to rip out low revenue general admin seats and add high dollar suites?

So what corner are trying to paint me in? I'm assuming your questions come with a catch.

[Dwight_K_Shrute]

It's a simple opp/good/better/best situation.  OPP is the upper deck, good:  lower deck GA, better: chairbacks, and best: boxes/suites.

In a straight retail situation if the demand was high in the better/best meaning the customers needs weren't getting met they would either expand the area/category to give more space to those or would cut opp/good to make more room for better/best.

With the stadium they are not going to cut the opp/good.  So what they are doing is creating space for the better/best.  A store that was running out of space would create a capital project to expand the store.  That's basically what the athletic department is doing but they have to get the permission from the board.  Although not unanimous it was 8-2, pretty darn close with a grumpy old man trying to get in the way.

With the good they are probably seeing high demand their that is not being met as well.  When demand is high what does any good retailer/business person do?  They raise the price.  So many people say "Well if they ran it like a business blah blah blah"  Guess what?  That is what they are doing.  They most likely figured out the equilibrium point for lower level GA and that's why they set it at $85.  They just don't pull these numbers out of a hat.  Besides their own internal data they can also see what the seats are going for on the secondary market.  So they have a wealth of information to determine what is the best price for these seats. 

The increase in those tickets will cause some to drop out completely, but the department knows they will be replaced by new ticket purchasers or people that have been in the upper but are willing to spend to get better seats now that they have opened up.

Raising the lower level tickets may end up helping fill the upper deck as some will simply move from the lower to upper, and if they drop the price of the upper/opp then new purchasers may move in there as well.  Don't use yourself as an example and say "Well I'm dropping mine"  That's great but that's just you.  We are talking macro here not individual instances or exceptions.  And the department is counting on some dropping, knowing they will be replaced.

They have segmented the market into distinct groups of customers and are trying to serve/maximize the revenue from each group.  You know who also does that?  The 3 billion pound gorilla 25 miles or so up the road and every other retailer/manufacturer/business worth their salt.  But it doesn't just happen, it takes money to make money.

The athletic department at the UofA has rarely if ever been a drain on the UofA as a whole.  It is one of the few programs in the country that gives money back to the University/Academics.  It helps build the brand not only for the "Razorbacks" but the UofA as a whole.  Jeff Long is a smart guy, seems to be pragmatic, and has done a good job of managing the athletic department's fiscal side so far. 

He also has some smart people around him and a wealth of resources at the UofA as well.  I'm sure they ran and reviewed the numbers.  Cost/Benefit, Supply/Demand Future Value/Present Value etc and so forth.  This is what Jeff and the department is paid to do.  Then the board is tasked with reviewing, making sure due diligence was done, evaluating and giving a yay or nay.  Which they did.  They UofA itself is usually a pragmatic institution as a whole and rarely if ever hear of any troubling financial woes.  It is a well run organization with highly paid and respected individuals at the helm.  It isn't LSU and there is no reason to think it suddenly will be.

Some just get mental blocks when numbers are thrown around with a lot of 000's.  They've never lived or dealt in that world.  Those things we don't understand we rail against.  It has to be a boondoggle or a money grab.  Where's the need?  Why are my tax dollars be wasted?  It's hurting academics and other schools and they stick to that even when it's been pointed out ad nauseam that this is not the case.

[razoredge178]

It's a simple opp/good/better/best situation.  OPP is the upper deck, good:  lower deck GA, better: chairbacks, and best: boxes/suites.

In a straight retail situation if the demand was high in the better/best meaning the customers needs weren't getting met they would either expand the area/category to give more space to those or would cut opp/good to make more room for better/best.

With the stadium they are not going to cut the opp/good.  So what they are doing is creating space for the better/best.  A store that was running out of space would create a capital project to expand the store.  That's basically what the athletic department is doing but they have to get the permission from the board.  Although not unanimous it was 8-2, pretty darn close with a grumpy old man trying to get in the way.

With the good they are probably seeing high demand their that is not being met as well.  When demand is high what does any good retailer/business person do?  They raise the price.  So many people say "Well if they ran it like a business blah blah blah"  Guess what?  That is what they are doing.  They most likely figured out the equilibrium point for lower level GA and that's why they set it at $85.  They just don't pull these numbers out of a hat.  Besides their own internal data they can also see what the seats are going for on the secondary market.  So they have a wealth of information to determine what is the best price for these seats. 

The increase in those tickets will cause some to drop out completely, but the department knows they will be replaced by new ticket purchasers or people that have been in the upper but are willing to spend to get better seats now that they have opened up.

Raising the lower level tickets may end up helping fill the upper deck as some will simply move from the lower to upper, and if they drop the price of the upper/opp then new purchasers may move in there as well.  Don't use yourself as an example and say "Well I'm dropping mine"  That's great but that's just you.  We are talking macro here not individual instances or exceptions.  And the department is counting on some dropping, knowing they will be replaced.

They have segmented the market into distinct groups of customers and are trying to serve/maximize the revenue from each group.  You know who also does that?  The 3 billion pound gorilla 25 miles or so up the road and every other retailer/manufacturer/business worth their salt.  But it doesn't just happen, it takes money to make money.

The athletic department at the UofA has rarely if ever been a drain on the UofA as a whole.  It is one of the few programs in the country that gives money back to the University/Academics.  It helps build the brand not only for the "Razorbacks" but the UofA as a whole.  Jeff Long is a smart guy, seems to be pragmatic, and has done a good job of managing the athletic department's fiscal side so far. 

He also has some smart people around him and a wealth of resources at the UofA as well.  I'm sure they ran and reviewed the numbers.  Cost/Benefit, Supply/Demand Future Value/Present Value etc and so forth.  This is what Jeff and the department is paid to do.  Then the board is tasked with reviewing, making sure due diligence was done, evaluating and giving a yay or nay.  Which they did.  They UofA itself is usually a pragmatic institution as a whole and rarely if ever hear of any troubling financial woes.  It is a well run organization with highly paid and respected individuals at the helm.  It isn't LSU and there is no reason to think it suddenly will be.

Some just get mental blocks when numbers are thrown around with a lot of 000's.  They've never lived or dealt in that world.  Those things we don't understand we rail against.  It has to be a boondoggle or a money grab.  Where's the need?  Why are my tax dollars be wasted?  It's hurting academics and other schools and they stick to that even when it's been pointed out ad nauseam that this is not the case.

This is a pretty square take on the deal, although history has proven countless times that spending on the forward, and most likely on someone else's watch when the bill comes due, has seen billions squandered on projects that never come close to paying for themselves.

IMO, all investments/projects should be solvent.

[k.c.hawg]

The athletic department is nearing $100 million a year in revenue, with the largest part of that income being generated by the football program. How could a project that costs $160 million and pays for itself with the revenues that said project creates be unreasonable.

There are unstated benefits to this project. Perception of the program. Staying in the arms race is vital for this football program to continue to be able to fund a $100 million a year budget. Anyone that thinks renovating existing suites is not part of the revenue generation from this project is not using common sense.

If the hotel you have been staying at in Fayetteville for the last 20 years continues to charge market prices with out updating the televisions, carpet and overall aesthetics would you continue being happy with the product.

You use the fact there will be underground parking for staff as a detriment to the project instead of looking at it as saving above ground space that generates revenue through donations and event revenue, as well as keeping staff working for an employer that is providing them with first class accommodation. We recruit staff as competitively as we recruit players.

NFL has been studying how to slow the erosion of the stadium fan, retreating to their home to watch in HD. The first thing that always comes up is jumbotrons, concourse monitors, wi-fi, high end amenities. Fans in the stadium want to be associated with winning and a first class environment that makes those that stay home jealous. This is just another part of the athletic program trying to build and maintain a football program that is bigger and better than before.

[ricepig]

This is a pretty square take on the deal, although history has proven countless times that spending on the forward, and most likely on someone else's watch when the bill comes due, has seen billions squandered on projects that never come close to paying for themselves.

IMO, all investments/projects should be solvent.

How many projects haven't paid for themselves involving UofA athletics?

[ricepig]

Yes, because the seats are the primary revenue source by which the $XXXXXX is being paid for. $5 bucks, or $500,000,000.

Didn't Tennessee do that with their BB facility? Spent a truck ton of money to rip out low revenue general admin seats and add high dollar suites?

So what corner are trying to paint me in? I'm assuming your questions come with a catch.

No corner, it's just the $160M + interest isn't for 3000 seats, lots of other renovations/improvements involved.

[razoredge178]

How many projects haven't paid for themselves involving UofA athletics?

I didn't specify the UofA.

[jusgtohogs]

With all due respect, you may not agree with his rationale but that doesn't make former Sen. Pryor nuts.  Believe it or not, it's possible to disagree with someone without being disagreeable about it.  You simply have a different point of view.  For me, I support the board's decision because I believe it's good for Razorback football.  But, that's just my POV.

[ATU HOG]

I'd rather see us win every game, with constant sellouts before adding on. 

Everyone is concerned with the additions to the stadium, when all we really want is to be a National Title contender year in and out.

[WilsonHog]

Everyone is concerned with the additions to the stadium, when all we really want is to be a National Title contender year in and out.

That's a pipe dream. Never happen.

[GuvHog]

I'd rather see us win every game, with constant sellouts before adding on. 

Everyone is concerned with the additions to the stadium, when all we really want is to be a National Title contender year in and out.

Being a national championship contender every year is a high lofty goal that the Hogs are very unlikely to reach. Being a national title contender every 3 or 4 years is certainly possible though as is regularly contending for SEC titles.

[razoredge178]

Being a national championship contender every year is a high lofty goal that the Hogs are very unlikely to reach. Being a national title contender every 3 or 4 years is certainly possible though as is regularly contending for SEC titles.

I think its fair to say that the 5-17 year old boys out there that will be the working horses of that contender team in the future could give a $%!# about those north end zone suites.....

Just saying. 

Most of us, yes us, including myself on rare occasion, talk out both ends depending on what the $$$ project is. Basketball training center, academic success center, the football mega complex...recruiting, donors, television, APR, whatever to justify how we feel about it at the moment.

At this moment, our leadership, who we have to rely on for fact and truth, is telling us that we need this massive overhaul and additional high-end donor seating. I guess to keep them happy? Maybe if they don't get the upgraded HDTV in their suite they'll go be OK State fans. Maybe they already have the suites pre-sold?

[ricepig]

I didn't specify the UofA.

Well, considering that is the topic of discussion, I thought it was relevant.

[oldhog63]

NFL has been studying how to slow the erosion of the stadium fan, retreating to their home to watch in HD. The first thing that always comes up is jumbotrons, concourse monitors, wi-fi, high end amenities. Fans in the stadium want to be associated with winning and a first class environment that makes those that stay home jealous. This is just another part of the athletic program trying to build and maintain a football program that is bigger and better than before.

wi-fi would be nice! Or even the ability to get a signal during the game.

[razoredge178]

Well, considering that is the topic of discussion, I thought it was relevant.

The scope of the topic has expanded. You're welcome to come along.

[ricepig]

The scope of the topic has expanded. You're welcome to come along.

No need to, I don't need to know the cost of widgets. I'll stick with the stadium renovation/expansion discussion.

[GuvHog]

I think its fair to say that the 5-17 year old boys out there that will be the working horses of that contender team in the future could give a $%!# about those north end zone suites.....

Just saying. 

Most of us, yes us, including myself on rare occasion, talk out both ends depending on what the $$$ project is. Basketball training center, academic success center, the football mega complex...recruiting, donors, television, APR, whatever to justify how we feel about it at the moment.

At this moment, our leadership, who we have to rely on for fact and truth, is telling us that we need this massive overhaul and additional high-end donor seating. I guess to keep them happy? Maybe if they don't get the upgraded HDTV in their suite they'll go be OK State fans. Maybe they already have the suites pre-sold?

I don't believe they'll have a problem selling the suites pretty fast as there is a long waiting list for them. There is however, no demand for more bench seating and they'll have a lot of those to fill when those fans currently sitting on both sides of the lower bowl start opting for the north end zone outdoor club seats. At $85 per bench seat, that's were I believe they might have problems selling.

[ricepig]

I don't believe they'll have a problem selling the suites pretty fast as there is a long waiting list for them. There is however, no demand for more bench seating and they'll have a lot of those to fill when those fans currently sitting on both sides of the lower bowl start opting for the north end zone outdoor club seats. At $85 per bench seat, that's were I believe they might have problems selling.

Those seats were $60 when you bought season tickets, not $85. There was a lot less than you think for sale, go try to buy some lower level on the web site.

[Pork Twain]

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

Pretty sure what you just described is exactly self-funded.  If I borrow money from the bank to buy a car, that is self-funded because nobody else is making those payments for me.

This thread is just proof that some will complain about anything.

[NaturalStateReb]

To a modern AD, the perfect football stadium would be a completely smooth cylinder several stories high containing nothing but luxury boxes surrounding a football field.  The only reason the bleachers exist is because they're structurally necessary to hold up the boxes.  It's not just Arkansas; it's the same everywhere.

It's just another step in the progression of making the college football experience for the upper-middle-class and above.  The rest of the plebs can watch at home.

[Pig in the Pokey]

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

the 2%

[GuvHog]

Those seats were $60 when you bought season tickets, not $85. There was a lot less than you think for sale, go try to buy some lower level on the web site.

The last season tickets I bought (2011) were $125 per seat per game.

[ricepig]

The last season tickets I bought (2011) were $125 per seat per game.

We were talking about the lower bowl, try to keep up.

[Inhogswetrust]

There are two fairly straightforward doses of reality here that folks might as well accept.

(1) College athletics are about generating money.

(2) Those fans who can afford to give the most money will get the best perks.

Harsh, but that doesn't make it less true.

and the other realities and truths are:

Some people want to and will spend money only on athletics
Some people want to and will spend money only on academics
Some people want to and will spend money on both
Some people don't want to spend money on either one

[GuvHog]

We were talking about the lower bowl, try to keep up.

The last lower bowl season tickets I bought were $45 per game.

[Vantage 8 dude]

and the other realities and truths are:

Some people want to and will spend money only on athletics
Some people want to and will spend money only on academics
Some people want to and will spend money on both
Some people don't want to spend money on either one

Up to a certain point I wouldn't argue with these realties. However, one point many are missing is the fact that IF these monies were to allocated to other (nonathletic) purposes the funds would likely still be raised via the original bond issue.

Having participated in other nonathletic bond issues from the U of A  I can assure you the demand has been there and the monies obtained through the offerings. I have a very strong suspicion that with the lack of good quality yield opportunities in the financial markets today-with the additional nontaxable status of the interest paid to bond holders-the demand would still be very strong.

[ricepig]

The last lower bowl season tickets I bought were $45 per game.

I'm not talking about "you" specifically, geez, I said you, as in a person could have bought the lower bowl seats for $60/game, understand?

[GuvHog]

I'm not talking about "you" specifically, geez, I said you, as in a person could have bought the lower bowl seats for $60/game, understand?

I understand. For the record if I could financially afford it, I'd still be buying those east side outdoor club seats and I'd be there for every game. I loved watching the Hogs in person and thoroughly enjoyed the trips up there and back just that much. It's not easy having to sit at home when I know and have experienced the game atmosphere I'm missing. Here's to hoping the expansion is a huge success.

[WilsonHog]

and the other realities and truths are:

Some people want to and will spend money only on athletics
Some people want to and will spend money only on academics
Some people want to and will spend money on both
Some people don't want to spend money on either one

Agreed. I fall into the first group. I've donated to the Foundation each of the last 31 years. I've never donated to the academic side of things.

[ricepig]

Agreed. I fall into the first group. I've donated to the Foundation each of the last 31 years. I've never donated to the academic side of things.

Do you has a Hog license plate, if so, you've donated for academics, lol.