Welcome, stranger! Please log in or register. - Did you miss your activation email?

Author Topic: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion  (Read 52221 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Law_Hawg

  • They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 24247
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2016, 11:09:25 AM »
the Chancellor doesn't have a multi-million dollar TV contract.


How much of the UA's share stays in the athletic department, and how much goes into the rest of the University?


Offline Phat_Hawg

  • Likes doing hoodrat stuff with his friends.
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 22536
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2016, 11:11:31 AM »
the Chancellor doesn't have a multi-million dollar TV contract.

Chancellor didn't have to borrow money to get his house built.

"Lemme guess.. when you shake hands you offer a FIRM grip don't you.. or you think dick size matters? LMMFAO! nobody can do nothing about what your born with, and God gives everyone exactly what they need, your heart is the only thing that matters...Plus, my dicks little, but ask anybody that's kicked it in the sack with me and they'll tell you whats up.."

Offline Count Porkula

  • Doctor
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 28908
  • Ya mo be there?
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2016, 11:22:41 AM »

How much of the UA's share stays in the athletic department, and how much goes into the rest of the University?

well, they give money back to the university for academics.  they also pay for the salaries of all of their own employees.  the state does not give one dime to athletics to pay for their employee costs, from the janitors up to Jeff.

Resonance...metal folding chairs or hard tile floors cannot be beaten when it comes to firing off a loud fart.

Offline Law_Hawg

  • They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 24247
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2016, 11:27:14 AM »
well, they give money back to the university for academics.  they also pay for the salaries of all of their own employees.  the state does not give one dime to athletics to pay for their employee costs, from the janitors up to Jeff.


How much of it goes back to the University, and for what?


Offline Phat_Hawg

  • Likes doing hoodrat stuff with his friends.
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 22536
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2016, 11:27:23 AM »
the state does not give one dime to athletics to pay for their employee costs, from the janitors up to Jeff.

Other than borrowing money with the UA system responsible for the note if they can't pay.

"Lemme guess.. when you shake hands you offer a FIRM grip don't you.. or you think dick size matters? LMMFAO! nobody can do nothing about what your born with, and God gives everyone exactly what they need, your heart is the only thing that matters...Plus, my dicks little, but ask anybody that's kicked it in the sack with me and they'll tell you whats up.."

Offline woodhog14

  • A Shoat
  • *
  • Posts: 85
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #30 on: June 15, 2016, 11:38:59 AM »
Where is the Morgan Freeman GIF?

Pryor's questions were legit, fair questions that UA decision makers ought to have answers for.  They need to be addressed.  The fact they haven't been, and that the athletic department acts as if it needn't be bothered, looks bad and is dumb politics for Long. He usually isn't tone deaf on matters like these.

Especially fair is to question tying up a chunk of the UA's bonding authority where the primary source of repaying is ticket sales.  The way fans watch games - the SEC has financed a million dollar study on this - is evolving.  Attendance at many schools is flattening out.  Younger fans seem less inclined to purchase season tickets.

The UA has an excellent bond rating as far as I can remeber and I'm sure it would make good on the payments if tickets and lux box revenues don't meet projections.  But if the UA needed to issue bonds for academic projects while the football bond issue was hanging out there and money started looking a little dicey, the Board might have to postpone some new school project.  You can't risk that.

I think it is still a defensible project but Long et al needs to do a better job of making the case for it.

Ummmmmmm...all of Pryor's questions were answered back on April 21st by the university.

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


Offline Count Porkula

  • Doctor
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 28908
  • Ya mo be there?
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2016, 11:41:33 AM »

How much of it goes back to the University, and for what?

can't give you a dollar amount but all the athletics scholarships are paid for using athletics funds and then they write a check each year to the general student scholarship fund for academics.  we are one of only a handful of schools in the nation which does not charge the "regular" student body an athletics fee to pay for facilities, payroll, scholarships, etc. They are 100% self funded.

Resonance...metal folding chairs or hard tile floors cannot be beaten when it comes to firing off a loud fart.

Online chittlins

  • Once got busy in a Burger King bathroom
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 9138
  • It's a two sniff league
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2016, 11:42:33 AM »
Other than borrowing money with the UA system responsible for the note if they can't pay.

Here's the deal, they have always paid the bonds.

Is this expansion for the well healed, you bet ya.

It is also allowing for cheaper seats and even cheaper SROs.

1t0 million is now a drop in the bucket. Try building BWA for 30 million today. Besides, hindsite tells us it was a mistake going cheap without proper non basketball amenities lime additional dressing rooms and larger docks included. It will be much more expensive to renovate BWA than it was to build it and I bet that's next after the NEZ.

I still get a strong whiney assed buttbut feeling that this is over the soon to be extinction of all WMS games.

Wasn't it Tyson that nixed purchasing the Fayetteville High School land for the U of A before the 100 million doo doo brown reno of the old high school was done. Think is was over like a 5 million difference in price, hindsite again will say that was cheap. Tyson sucked at running Tyson, he needs to just stick to collecting money.


Offline hit_that_line

  • Boar
  • ****
  • Posts: 4719
  • woopig.net
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #33 on: June 15, 2016, 12:08:01 PM »
Here's the deal, they have always paid the bonds.

Is this expansion for the well healed, you bet ya.

It is also allowing for cheaper seats and even cheaper SROs.

1t0 million is now a drop in the bucket. Try building BWA for 30 million today. Besides, hindsite tells us it was a mistake going cheap without proper non basketball amenities lime additional dressing rooms and larger docks included. It will be much more expensive to renovate BWA than it was to build it and I bet that's next after the NEZ.

I still get a strong whiney assed buttbut feeling that this is over the soon to be extinction of all WMS games.

Wasn't it Tyson that nixed purchasing the Fayetteville High School land for the U of A before the 100 million doo doo brown reno of the old high school was done. Think is was over like a 5 million difference in price, hindsite again will say that was cheap. Tyson sucked at running Tyson, he needs to just stick to collecting money.
I thought FHS backed out? This is much ado about nothing. I suspect the DSCR on these things will be over 10X. Likely will be called well prior to maturity. University will never pay a dime.

"You're hurt son? Shit just because my dick hurts doesn't mean I quit fucking."

Offline Arkansas Proud

  • Admins be changing my title daily
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 15578
  • The better half
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #34 on: June 15, 2016, 01:00:56 PM »
Where is the Morgan Freeman GIF?

Pryor's questions were legit, fair questions that UA decision makers ought to have answers for.  They need to be addressed.  The fact they haven't been, and that the athletic department acts as if it needn't be bothered, looks bad and is dumb politics for Long.  He usually isn't tone deaf on matters like these.

Especially fair is to question tying up a chunk of the UA's bonding authority where the primary source of repaying is ticket sales.  The way fans watch games - the SEC has financed a million dollar study on this - is evolving.  Attendance at many schools is flattening out.  Younger fans seem less inclined to purchase season tickets.

The UA has an excellent bond rating as far as I can remeber and I'm sure it would make good on the payments if tickets and lux box revenues don't meet projections.  But if the UA needed to issue bonds for academic projects while the football bond issue was hanging out there and money started looking a little dicey, the Board might have to postpone some new school project.  You can't risk that.

I think it is still a defensible project but Long et al needs to do a better job of making the case for it.

Honestly, Long doesn't have to do shit.  Once he cried on national TV about having to fire Petrino, he was given AD for Life.  What has done of significance since hiring Petrino in what his first 3 months here? 

Sign coaches to extensions?  I might be able to do that.

He's entrenched.  He knows it.  He's waiting.

"I completely agree." -- Stephen Coalboar on August 22, 2014 at 11:39 a.m.

Offline Count Porkula

  • Doctor
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 28908
  • Ya mo be there?
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #35 on: June 15, 2016, 01:32:01 PM »
I thought FHS backed out? .

they did after the university wouldn't bow to their demands of allowing them to continue use of the athletics facilities as well as balking at the price the university was willing to pay.  FHS was basically trying to fleece the university to pay for their new school with little bond/millage money involved. 

Resonance...metal folding chairs or hard tile floors cannot be beaten when it comes to firing off a loud fart.

Offline DirkPiggler

  • The Lyrical Jesse James
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 13351
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #36 on: June 15, 2016, 01:37:38 PM »
Other than borrowing money with the UA system responsible for the note if they can't pay.

Which, unless it keeps the university from issuing other bonds or borrowing other money at some point, is not a cost at all. 


Offline Phat_Hawg

  • Likes doing hoodrat stuff with his friends.
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 22536
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #37 on: June 15, 2016, 02:42:25 PM »
Which, unless it keeps the university from issuing other bonds or borrowing other money at some point, is not a cost at all.

It probably won't be a cost but it's kind of silly to tout how independent the athletic dept is while they are having to come hat in hand to the UA system.

"Lemme guess.. when you shake hands you offer a FIRM grip don't you.. or you think dick size matters? LMMFAO! nobody can do nothing about what your born with, and God gives everyone exactly what they need, your heart is the only thing that matters...Plus, my dicks little, but ask anybody that's kicked it in the sack with me and they'll tell you whats up.."

Offline DirkPiggler

  • The Lyrical Jesse James
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 13351
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #38 on: June 15, 2016, 03:00:40 PM »
It probably won't be a cost but it's kind of silly to tout how independent the athletic dept is while they are having to come hat in hand to the UA system.

Maybe they have to issue bonds through the university since the property being improved is owned by the university?  Otherwise I would think they could issue the bonds through the Razorback Foundation. 


Online geohul

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Boar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2830
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #39 on: June 15, 2016, 03:58:16 PM »
I understand the thought process that says we are in the SEC and have to compete and that we have the big TV money so we might as well go big or go home.  That said, has anyone been keeping up with ESPN and the loss of subscribers they've had over the last 3 quarters?  With the TV rights revenue they are currently pulling in everything is great, but I'm wondering if we aren't about to see the end of huge TV contracts for the sports leagues.  The following is an excerpt from a *gulp* Clay Travis article (yeah I know he's a fuckwad but there are some legitimate points made in this article).   I'll link the full article below but the gist of it is this.

According to 2016 Nielsen data ESPN lost over 1.5 million subscribers from February to the end of May this year. That drops ESPN to 89,465,000 subscriber homes, a precipitous decline from the network's total number of 2013 subscribers which was over 99 million. Based on these numbers over the past four months ESPN lost an average of 10,400 subscribers a day. 

This matters for sports fans in a big way because of the fixed costs sports programming commands over the coming decade. ESPN, for instance, has committed exorbitant sums to rights fees: $1.9 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football, $1.47 billion to the NBA, $700 million to Major League Baseball, $608 million for the College Football Playoff, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC, the ACC, the Big 12 and the Pac 12. At an absolute minimum it would appear that ESPN presently pays out nearly $6 billion a year to sports leagues just in rights fees. The money from those rights fees comes from our cable bills. And, significantly, from tens of millions of people who will never watch a single game on ESPN. That's why I've long been arguing that the cable bundle is a great deal if you're a sports fan.

This means that before it can make a dollar, ESPN has to pay out roughly $6 billion a year to sports leagues. That's every year for a decade or more. When cable and satellite subscriber numbers were staying constant or continuing to grow -- as they were for decades -- that was certainly doable, but what happens if those subscriber numbers continue to decline? Right now ESPN has 89 million subscribers. That's still $7 billion in subscriber revenue a year. What we don't know is this, what would happen if cord cutting eventually drove that number down to, say, 70 million subscribers? Then ESPN would bring in $5.6 billion and owe the sports leagues six billion a year.


My fear is that with dwindling stadium attendance and less TV revenue we are going to end up with a monstrosity that we won't be able to handle the maintenance on, not to mention the embarrassment of a half empty stadium on TV (more likely the internet) in the coming years.  I want us to have the best, but I don't like the idea of borrowing from the future to get it.
Here is the link to the Fox article I mentioned.  I encourage everyone to read it and get a feel for the changing landscape of sports. 
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-1-5-million-subscribers-as-cord-cutting-accelerates-052816

My second problem with the expansion is 100% personal.  The point brought up in the letter about faculty and staff pay is so fucking true.  Staff members have been given 2% cost of living across the board the last 4 years running.  Couple that with merit bonuses which at best give you an extra 2.5% and the increases in insurance, parking, and the loss of benefits has long time University employees eyeing other opportunities.  The new Chancellor has said he's working on improving wages but the fact remains all faculty/staff are woefully underpaid.  I'm competent at my job, and love my coworkers, but the lure of 40% more pay in the private sector has been a siren song I can only ignore for so long.  Both my parents, my wife's parents, my wife and myself have all been faculty/staff here and it pains me to see what it's becoming because we can't retain talented people. 

Football games may be all some of you care about.  I don't know.  But, before we dump 200 mil into that stadium, I'd like to see a good faith effort made to improve salaries/benefits and upgrade more of our academic facilities.  I love this University and am proud to be a part of it, but there is some serious room for improvement. 
 


Offline Stephen Colboar

  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 25957
  • savage
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #40 on: June 15, 2016, 04:04:38 PM »
The end-game for that will just be finding better ways to monetize cord-cutters.

I’ve never experienced anyone working at CFA being a jerk or rude but yesterday I encountered a guy in the drive thru who was not only rude but a jerk. When I finally had my order and he didn’t even say my pleasure I yelled “thanks for being a jerk” and drove off.

Offline BASS

  • The Philosophical Woopigga
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 10498
  • Fuck The Man
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #41 on: June 15, 2016, 04:11:40 PM »
ESPN is leading the charge in mobile device watching, which is the way the American television industry is moving.  True, people aren't consuming their sports on tv much anymore, but I imagine a future where you can go without satellite and cable tv, and subscribe to whatever channel apps you want on your mobile device.  Soon you probably won't need a satellite or cable provider to watch anything ESPN online, only a subscription to the Watch ESPN app, which will still have all of the revenue generating commercials of television.  ESPN will still make their money, just from a different source than television. 

Drives in the left lane with the hammer down.

Offline Stephen Colboar

  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 25957
  • savage
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #42 on: June 15, 2016, 04:12:31 PM »
ESPN is leading the charge in mobile device watching, which is the way the American television industry is moving.  True, people aren't consuming their sports on tv much anymore, but I imagine a future where you can go without satellite and cable tv, and subscribe to whatever channel apps you want on your mobile device.  Soon you probably won't need a satellite or cable provider to watch anything ESPN online, only a subscription to the Watch ESPN app, which will still have all of the revenue generating commercials of television.  ESPN will still make their money, just from a different source than television.
Exactly.

I’ve never experienced anyone working at CFA being a jerk or rude but yesterday I encountered a guy in the drive thru who was not only rude but a jerk. When I finally had my order and he didn’t even say my pleasure I yelled “thanks for being a jerk” and drove off.

Offline HogNrock

  • Boar
  • ****
  • Posts: 3303
  • McHeisman pose
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #43 on: June 15, 2016, 04:15:16 PM »

My second problem with the expansion is 100% personal.  The point brought up in the letter about faculty and staff pay is so fucking true.  Staff members have been given 2% cost of living across the board the last 4 years running.  Couple that with merit bonuses which at best give you an extra 2.5% and the increases in insurance, parking, and the loss of benefits has long time University employees eyeing other opportunities.  The new Chancellor has said he's working on improving wages but the fact remains all faculty/staff are woefully underpaid.  I'm competent at my job, and love my coworkers, but the lure of 40% more pay in the private sector has been a siren song I can only ignore for so long.  Both my parents, my wife's parents, my wife and myself have all been faculty/staff here and it pains me to see what it's becoming because we can't retain talented people. 

As the husband of an elementary school teacher, I agree wholeheartedly about educators/faculty being underpaid for the services they provide.  That said, I'm in the private sector and a 3-4.5% annual raise/cost of living increase is as good or better than most that I've seen in the last few/several years (excluding a promotion). 

Underpaid educators isn't an issue that is unique to the UofA.  That is a nation-wide/fundamental issue.  You would make more in the private sector, I'm just saying the annual salary increase isn't much better than what faculty receive.


Offline Phat_Hawg

  • Likes doing hoodrat stuff with his friends.
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 22536
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #44 on: June 15, 2016, 04:25:26 PM »
Maybe they have to issue bonds through the university since the property being improved is owned by the university?  Otherwise I would think they could issue the bonds through the Razorback Foundation.

Legitimate point.  I don't know if the Razorback Foundation can issue bonds or not.

"Lemme guess.. when you shake hands you offer a FIRM grip don't you.. or you think dick size matters? LMMFAO! nobody can do nothing about what your born with, and God gives everyone exactly what they need, your heart is the only thing that matters...Plus, my dicks little, but ask anybody that's kicked it in the sack with me and they'll tell you whats up.."

Offline Count Porkula

  • Doctor
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 28908
  • Ya mo be there?
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #45 on: June 15, 2016, 04:26:50 PM »

My second problem with the expansion is 100% personal.  The point brought up in the letter about faculty and staff pay is so fucking true.  Staff members have been given 2% cost of living across the board the last 4 years running.  Couple that with merit bonuses which at best give you an extra 2.5% and the increases in insurance, parking, and the loss of benefits has long time University employees eyeing other opportunities.  The new Chancellor has said he's working on improving wages but the fact remains all faculty/staff are woefully underpaid.  I'm competent at my job, and love my coworkers, but the lure of 40% more pay in the private sector has been a siren song I can only ignore for so long.  Both my parents, my wife's parents, my wife and myself have all been faculty/staff here and it pains me to see what it's becoming because we can't retain talented people. 

Football games may be all some of you care about.  I don't know.  But, before we dump 200 mil into that stadium, I'd like to see a good faith effort made to improve salaries/benefits and upgrade more of our academic facilities.  I love this University and am proud to be a part of it, but there is some serious room for improvement. 

the university has 0% say over pay increases for the vast majority of the employees on campus.  that would be your wonderful legislature and governor who control that.

Resonance...metal folding chairs or hard tile floors cannot be beaten when it comes to firing off a loud fart.

Offline ArkGuy

  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 13158
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #46 on: June 15, 2016, 04:33:22 PM »
Which, unless it keeps the university from issuing other bonds or borrowing other money at some point, is not a cost at all.

True, but that's the $120 million question.

The UA system has rated debt of about 1.2 billion.  This proposed issue would increase that by 10% minus whatever issue(s) they might retire early.  There is an issue set to pay off in 2021 they may pay off with the new issue's money.

The last several bond issues of the UA system have been rated "Aa2."  Aa is very good and indicates a "very low credit risk."  "Aaa" is reserved for "lowest level of credit risk."  The "2" simply means a rating not quite as good as "Aa1" but slightly better than "Aa3."  But "Aa" anything is quite good.

But, here are some of Moody's comments from a recent previous issue related to what it calls "challenges:"

*Exposure to the potentially volatile healthcare sector continues through operation of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) and the University Hospital of Arkansas. UAMS' operating performance based on Moody's calculations has softened with FY 2013 operating cash flow margin of 3.3% as compared to a 4.1% average cash flow margin in FY 2010 through FY 2012.

*System-wide unrestricted and liquid operating funds are limited relative to its expense base with $317 million of monthly liquidity equating to 52 monthly days cash on hand as of June 30, 2013, lower than many rated peers.

*Debt levels are growing at faster pace than reserves, with expendable financial resources cushioning pro-forma debt by 0.7 times, down from 0.8 times at the end of fiscal year 2010.

*Limited level of expected state capital funding in the near-term combined with ongoing capital needs across the campuses could increase leverage in the future.

*Constrained growth in research funding is expected, as system-wide research grant revenue is heavily reliant on NIH funding. Research expenditures totaled $238 million in FY 2013, up 4% from the prior year


Lot's of things go into an entity's bond rating but it isn't a bottomless pit of free money.  If the system has low cash relative to debt, and you increase your debt, sooner or later it can affect your rating, no matter how good your track record is.  If their rating were to drop to "A" they'd have to offer a little more interest, all other things equal, to sell all the bonds.  The cumulative effect of all the outstanding bond issues affects the next bond issue and the ones likely to come later.  The Board has to factor that in.

It also should factor in something that goes beyond simple finances, something more subjective but nevertheless real, and that is what kind of message does it want to send regarding where it spends its treasures.  What message does it want to send regarding its priorities?

"As the leader of all illegal activities in Casablanca, I am an influential and respected man."

Offline ArkGuy

  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 13158
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2016, 04:37:10 PM »
Legitimate point.  I don't know if the Razorback Foundation can issue bonds or not.

Even if they legally could, they have no track record paying off bonds and an issue of $120 MM with the Foundation's only (read that non-diversified) source of revenue being donations from fickle boosters, I can't imagine what their rating would be.  I'd rather buy bonds issued by the Third Baptist Church for their new family life center.

"As the leader of all illegal activities in Casablanca, I am an influential and respected man."

Offline kingofdequeen

  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2016, 04:39:29 PM »
Legitimate point.  I don't know if the Razorback Foundation can issue bonds or not.

one does not simply issue securities.


Offline Law_Hawg

  • They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
  • King of the Hogs
  • *****
  • Posts: 24247
Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2016, 04:42:28 PM »
Legitimate point.  I don't know if the Razorback Foundation can issue bonds or not.


It can't.