Woopig.net

Razorback-Related => Razorback Discussion => Topic started by: The Pig in Black on June 15, 2016, 09:45:49 AM

Title: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: The Pig in Black on June 15, 2016, 09:45:49 AM
From this morning's NWA ADG?

As former members of the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees, we write to express our concern about the proposed $160 Million expansion of Razorback Stadium on the Fayetteville campus, and to support UA trustee David Pryor’s position on the matter.
From what we read in the media, it appears this project is headed toward completion, with the Board of Trustees having given some preliminary approval already, and another vote on project perhaps to come at the Board meeting scheduled next week.
We are all avid Razorback fans, and have been for many, many years, but we just cannot support this project, at this time. It is simply too much, at the wrong time, and we hope the UAF administration and the Board of Trustees will put it on hold until the questions that David Pryor has asked, and a lot more, can be answered.

The last time Razorback Stadium was renovated and expanded, approximately 20 years ago, we spent roughly $100 million to update the facilities and add about 20,000 seats. That worked out to be about $5,000 per additional seat. Since that time, our best guess is that we have had MAYBE 10 or 12 games “sell out”, but only 2 or 3 truly “full houses” in those 20 years. Now we are planning to spend another $160 million (that will in all likelihood end up being $200 million+), and are only adding another approximately 3,000 seats. Since we have very seldom, in 20 years, filled the stadium up, we really don’t need many, if any, additional seats but we’re still going to spend another $160-200 million on the facility? This simply defies all logic. So, if we aren’t getting many more seats what is all that money going to be spent for? We are told it is for more luxury suites, other amenities like an even bigger additional electronic scoreboard, luxurious new offices for the Athletic Department’s ever increasing staff, and underground parking and private elevators for that staff, so they don’t have to walk in the rain to get to their new offices.

Can we really afford this kind of project on a campus where we don’t really have enough classrooms in which to teach our students, we are told we can’t afford to adequately equip our science labs, and our staff and faculty are still woefully underpaid? We believe our priorities on the Fayetteville campus are just wrong. Instead of focusing on luxury suites for the very few among us who can afford them, think about what could be done with an additional $160 to $200 million dollars for our students, our faculty and staff, and our academic programs. We might even be able to figure out a way to get our faculty salaries out of the absolute bottom of the rankings of the 50 states. Excellence in these areas should be our priorities, instead of being known for having the most luxurious sky boxes in the SEC and an office building for the Athletic Department that is second to none.

If all of this were being done totally with private contributions that would be one thing, but, well over half of the money to be spent is going to be borrowed by the University through the issuance of bonds backed by ticket sales revenue. This is another issue that gives us pause. The ability to pay back $120 million in debt being dependent on ticket sales and the number of football games we win over the next 20 years is something the Board of Trustees need to think long and hard about in our opinion. And, of course that $120 million figure is not actually the total cost for getting the bonds paid off. Over the 20 year life of the bonds, the actual payment of principal, interest, fees and commissions will probably bring the total cost of the $120 million bond issue to over $200 million.

With the financial support from the state already under serious pressure, and consideration being given to completely changing how state support is calculated (to focus on “outcomes” instead of simple enrollment numbers), and with tuition continuing to skyrocket making it more and more difficult for the average student to be able to afford higher education, we simply believe this is a terrible time for the U. of A. Fayetteville to be making a commitment to this kind of debt, especially for this purpose. We encourage the Board of Trustees to slow this project down and continue to review its priorities.

—John H. Tyson, Springdale
—Kaneaster Hodges, Newport
—Frances Cranford, Little Rock
—Diane Nolan Alderson, El Dorado
—Jack L. Williams, Texarkana / L.R.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 10:03:14 AM
I think I've come around to pretty much agreeing with all of that.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Ty Webb on June 15, 2016, 10:09:15 AM
From this morning's NWA ADG?

As FORMER members of the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees, we write to express our concern about the proposed $160 Million expansion of Razorback Stadium on the Fayetteville campus, and to support UA trustee David Pryor’s position on the matter.
From what we read in the media, it appears this project is headed toward completion, with the Board of Trustees having given some preliminary approval already, and another vote on project perhaps to come at the Board meeting scheduled next week.
We are all avid Razorback fans, and have been for many, many years, but we just cannot support this project, at this time. It is simply too much, at the wrong time, and we hope the UAF administration and the Board of Trustees will put it on hold until the questions that David Pryor has asked, and a lot more, can be answered.

The last time Razorback Stadium was renovated and expanded, approximately 20 years ago, we spent roughly $100 million to update the facilities and add about 20,000 seats. That worked out to be about $5,000 per additional seat. Since that time, our best guess is that we have had MAYBE 10 or 12 games “sell out”, but only 2 or 3 truly “full houses” in those 20 years. Now we are planning to spend another $160 million (that will in all likelihood end up being $200 million+), and are only adding another approximately 3,000 seats. Since we have very seldom, in 20 years, filled the stadium up, we really don’t need many, if any, additional seats but we’re still going to spend another $160-200 million on the facility? This simply defies all logic. So, if we aren’t getting many more seats what is all that money going to be spent for? We are told it is for more luxury suites, other amenities like an even bigger additional electronic scoreboard, luxurious new offices for the Athletic Department’s ever increasing staff, and underground parking and private elevators for that staff, so they don’t have to walk in the rain to get to their new offices.

Can we really afford this kind of project on a campus where we don’t really have enough classrooms in which to teach our students, we are told we can’t afford to adequately equip our science labs, and our staff and faculty are still woefully underpaid? We believe our priorities on the Fayetteville campus are just wrong. Instead of focusing on luxury suites for the very few among us who can afford them, think about what could be done with an additional $160 to $200 million dollars for our students, our faculty and staff, and our academic programs. We might even be able to figure out a way to get our faculty salaries out of the absolute bottom of the rankings of the 50 states. Excellence in these areas should be our priorities, instead of being known for having the most luxurious sky boxes in the SEC and an office building for the Athletic Department that is second to none.

If all of this were being done totally with private contributions that would be one thing, but, well over half of the money to be spent is going to be borrowed by the University through the issuance of bonds backed by ticket sales revenue. This is another issue that gives us pause. The ability to pay back $120 million in debt being dependent on ticket sales and the number of football games we win over the next 20 years is something the Board of Trustees need to think long and hard about in our opinion. And, of course that $120 million figure is not actually the total cost for getting the bonds paid off. Over the 20 year life of the bonds, the actual payment of principal, interest, fees and commissions will probably bring the total cost of the $120 million bond issue to over $200 million.

With the financial support from the state already under serious pressure, and consideration being given to completely changing how state support is calculated (to focus on “outcomes” instead of simple enrollment numbers), and with tuition continuing to skyrocket making it more and more difficult for the average student to be able to afford higher education, we simply believe this is a terrible time for the U. of A. Fayetteville to be making a commitment to this kind of debt, especially for this purpose. We encourage the Board of Trustees to slow this project down and continue to review its priorities.

—John H. Tyson, Springdale
—Kaneaster Hodges, Newport
—Frances Cranford, Little Rock
—Diane Nolan Alderson, El Dorado
—Jack L. Williams, Texarkana / L.R.
This is a key word.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 10:12:53 AM
This is a key word.

Why?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Ty Webb on June 15, 2016, 10:15:25 AM
Why?
Because they ain't calling the shots anymore.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Razor B on June 15, 2016, 10:20:09 AM
How could we have a sell out when they allowed a coach to stay 10 years with how many 0 for Octobers?  Nutt's best season was 1998, his first.  He won one more game that year than Bret did in 2015.  The product on the field is directly to blame for not selling out, just like it is for everyone else in the country, except for Nebraska.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: NotoriousPIG on June 15, 2016, 10:20:28 AM
$160mm for 3,000 seats should be a non-starter.  All this money going to the 1% of fans so a waste of public money in my opinion and they're not wrong about the number of sell-outs we've had.  Unless we're competing with Alabama every year for the SEC West I don't see why to throw more money after this not too mention the television viewing experience is getting way better every year and way cheaper.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: The Pig in Black on June 15, 2016, 10:22:39 AM
This is a key word.

I understand your point, but when the list of signers begins with Tyson and that same name is adorned on many buildings, athletic and otherwise, on the campus, I think that still carries a substantial amount of weight.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Hogeye_Pierce on June 15, 2016, 10:30:16 AM
This is Aggie-esque thinking on the part of the BOT in my view.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Clark on June 15, 2016, 10:33:46 AM
Whatever. How is it being paid for? Football.

Nobody really gives a fuck-all about academics.

The Razorback football program is the bell cow of the entire state. It's the most unifying thing we have.

They are 'guessing' at sell outs. They're wrong.

I can go on and on about how this is the right thing to do. I can't talk very long about how this is the wrong thing to do.

Go big or go home.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 10:35:30 AM
Because they ain't calling the shots anymore.

Well yeah it's unlikely that the current trustees would write an open letter to themselves.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 10:37:59 AM

I can go on and on about how this is the right thing to do.


I'm listening.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 10:39:30 AM
Whatever. How is it being paid for? Football.

Nobody really gives a fuck-all about academics.

The Razorback football program is the bell cow of the entire state. It's the most unifying thing we have.

They are 'guessing' at sell outs. They're wrong.

I can go on and on about how this is the right thing to do. I can't talk very long about how this is the wrong thing to do.

Go big or go home.


This is probably one of the best examples of why athletics needs to be separated from educational institutions, as they are in the majority of other countries. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: ArkGuy on June 15, 2016, 10:45:18 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 15, 2016, 10:45:45 AM

This is probably one of the best examples of why athletics needs to be separated from educational institutions, as they are in the majority of other countries.

we're in the SEC.   if we're not building and improving, we're not competing. 

This money will generate even more money.   Has nothing to do with educational funds.   

If you're REALLY worried about your woefully underpaid staff, QUIT HIRING 1000 VICE CHANCELLORS OF EVERYTHING AT 200K a pop.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 10:49:16 AM
This money will generate even more money.   Has nothing to do with educational funds.   


I enjoy this point. 

If a university isn't spending academic money on athletics, then why are athletics part of an academic institution?  Why aren't athletics just a separate organization devoted to sports?

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 15, 2016, 10:50:03 AM

I enjoy this point. 

If a university isn't spending academic money on athletics, then why are athletics part of an academic institution?  Why aren't athletics just a separate organization devoted to sports?

b/c we live in America.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 15, 2016, 10:52:30 AM
Quote
The SEC distributed $457.8 million to its 14 members, an average of $32.7 million per school. That’s up from $21 million per school in 2013-14. As recently as 2008-09, SEC members got $13.1 million per year from the conference distribution. The SEC's revenue increased by 222 percent between 2008-09 and 2014-15 when factoring inflation.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/sec-rakes-in-5274-million-in-first-year-of-cfp-and-sec-network/


chemistry dept ain't doing that.   
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 10:52:56 AM
b/c we live in America.


(https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/america-fuck-yeah-team-america-july-4th-independence-day-memes-photos-9.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=543)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DirkPiggler on June 15, 2016, 10:54:58 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.

While ticket sales overall have been leveling off, there is still a pretty good waiting list for premium seating (suites and club seats).  The way I understand it this project is almost exclusively adding those types of seats.  The revenue stream should be consistent enough to repay the bonds without dipping into general education or even other athletic funds. 

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 10:59:02 AM

This money will generate even more money.   Has nothing to do with educational funds.   


After your little rant the other day about the Chancellor's house this is pretty hilarious.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 11:04:45 AM
While ticket sales overall have been leveling off, there is still a pretty good waiting list for premium seating (suites and club seats).  The way I understand it this project is almost exclusively adding those types of seats.  The revenue stream should be consistent enough to repay the bonds without dipping into general education or even other athletic funds.

I think that if it was just new luxury boxes and some additional seating there wouldn't be too much of a fuss.  It's the new scoreboard, athletic dept offices, underground parking, etc that is gumming up the works.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DirkPiggler on June 15, 2016, 11:08:32 AM
I think that if it was just new luxury boxes and some additional seating there wouldn't be too much of a fuss.  It's the new scoreboard, athletic dept offices, underground parking, etc that is gumming up the works.

The new scoreboard is going to be necessary to sell the seats in the North End Zone.  People aren't going to pay for end zone seats if they don't have the video board to allow them to actually see the play. 

I get the questioning of the rest of it though.  Can't see where a shiny new office for Long and company can be sold as a recruiting advantage.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 15, 2016, 11:08:38 AM
After your little rant the other day about the Chancellor's house this is pretty hilarious.

the Chancellor doesn't have a multi-million dollar TV contract.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Clark on June 15, 2016, 11:09:05 AM
2014-15 The athletic department gave 2.37million to the school. Gave. Not took.


The waiting list for premium seating is driving this. Down with the rickety temporary seating. The Broyles Complex needs updated pretty bad. It's awful. A study shows that over the next five years Razorback Athletics will have a billion dollar impact on the local economy.

NWA is growing. Money growth. Those people don't want seats in the upper deck corners. They have cash flow. They want premium seating. This isn't doing something on a whim. They've got their ducks in a row. They know what they're doing.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg 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?

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg 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?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: woodhog14 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
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hit_that_line 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Arkansas Proud 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula 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. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DirkPiggler 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. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DirkPiggler 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. 

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: geohul 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. 
 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar on June 15, 2016, 04:04:38 PM
The end-game for that will just be finding better ways to monetize cord-cutters.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BASS 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. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogNrock 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: ArkGuy 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?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: ArkGuy 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.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen 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.

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg 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.

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: OP on June 15, 2016, 04:45:40 PM
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.

That day is already here.  You can get several of the ESPN "family of networks" plus ESPN Watch through the Sling online TV provider.  Oddly enough, they don't show commercials on some programming; not sure what's up with that.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 15, 2016, 04:54:52 PM
That day is already here.  You can get several of the ESPN "family of networks" plus ESPN Watch through the Sling online TV provider.  Oddly enough, they don't show commercials on some programming; not sure what's up with that.

and it is fabulous.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar on June 15, 2016, 04:59:33 PM
Sling was absolutely shitty in my experience.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogHead McCormick on June 15, 2016, 06:03:27 PM
Sling was absolutely shitty in my experience.

Yes it is. Less programming every week.
I'm still using sling, but am anxiously awaiting a better service from google, amazon, someone.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 15, 2016, 06:16:50 PM
I don't want to hear bitching about a 2 percent raise by staff members when many of us haven't sniffed a 2 percent per annum raise since 2008. Got Damn that pissed me off. You unhappy? Find another fucking job. That's gov't and gov't connected jobs in a fucking nutshell. Folks would have loved those raise elsewhere. Raising health cost? Congrats Obama voting motherfuckers, just wait till the next round of increases, pucker up bitches. Academics and their cush jobs, got damn.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: wmr on June 15, 2016, 06:19:54 PM
I'm ok with them passing on this.  There are a couple of building projects that are sorely needed on campus and I'd prefer they not half-ass them.

The new chancellor is already talking enrollment cap, and raising standards for OOS students.  Apparently another record freshman class is headed to the hill in the fall.

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 15, 2016, 06:21:58 PM
I'm ok with them passing on this.  There are a couple of building projects that are sorely needed on campus and I'd prefer they not half-ass them.

The new chancellor is already talking enrollment cap, and raising standards for OOS students.  Apparently another record freshman class is headed to the hill in the fall.

Fayetteville's road infrastructure near campus can't handle much more.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: The Pig in Black on June 15, 2016, 06:43:34 PM
I don't want to hear bitching about a 2 percent raise by staff members when many of us haven't sniffed a 2 percent per annum raise since 2008. Got Damn that pissed me off. You unhappy? Find another fucking job. That's gov't and gov't connected jobs in a fucking nutshell. Folks would have loved those raise elsewhere. Raising health cost? Congrats Obama voting motherfuckers, just wait till the next round of increases, pucker up bitches. Academics and their cush jobs, got damn.

You really are the biggest blowhard asshole on this board.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 15, 2016, 06:44:22 PM
Sling was absolutely shitty in my experience.

i got rid of it and got Vue instead.

I'm ok with them passing on this.  There are a couple of building projects that are sorely needed on campus and I'd prefer they not half-ass them.

The new chancellor is already talking enrollment cap, and raising standards for OOS students.  Apparently another record freshman class is headed to the hill in the fall.



500 more than what we had this year.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 15, 2016, 06:45:58 PM
I don't want to hear bitching about a 2 percent raise by staff members when many of us haven't sniffed a 2 percent per annum raise since 2008. Got Damn that pissed me off. You unhappy? Find another fucking job. That's gov't and gov't connected jobs in a fucking nutshell. Folks would have loved those raise elsewhere. Raising health cost? Congrats Obama voting motherfuckers, just wait till the next round of increases, pucker up bitches. Academics and their cush jobs, got damn.
[/quote

go tell that to our custodial staff making 17K a year. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Rocket_City_Hawg on June 15, 2016, 07:12:57 PM
For the uninformed, what does an athletics facility expansion paid for by private donations and bonds that will be repaid by athletic revenue have to do with academic staff pay.  Academic facilities I can see but given that same athletics group also contributed to two recent academic facilities, you would think they would get a pass on that.  The answers to Pryor's questions were enlightening to how we conduct business as opposed to the other members of the conference
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 15, 2016, 07:13:50 PM
I don't want to hear bitching about a 2 percent raise by staff members when many of us haven't sniffed a 2 percent per annum raise since 2008. Got Damn that pissed me off. You unhappy? Find another fucking job. That's gov't and gov't connected jobs in a fucking nutshell. Folks would have loved those raise elsewhere. Raising health cost? Congrats Obama voting motherfuckers, just wait till the next round of increases, pucker up bitches. Academics and their cush jobs, got damn.

go tell that to our custodial staff making 17K a year.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 15, 2016, 07:14:40 PM
For the uninformed, what does an athletics facility expansion paid for by private donations and bonds that will be repaid by athletic revenue have to do with academic staff pay.  Academic facilities I can see but given that same athletics group also contributed to two recent academic facilities, you would think they would get a pass on that.  The answers to Pryor's questions were enlightening to how we conduct business as opposed to the other members of the conference

it doesn't.  that's what people don't understand and in a lot of cases, care to understand.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Aporkalypse_Now on June 15, 2016, 08:08:10 PM
I don't understand why people don't get that the stadium will be paid for with football money.  They are already giving more to athletics than all but a handful of programs across the country. 

Our stadium renovation 16 years ago made up a lot of ground but didn't exactly keep us up with the Joneses, and we've done virtually nothing since.  We've been pumping money into facilities for non-revenue sports (and lower revenue sports), in the end if you want to make money for the athletic dept to keep doing that you have one place to really do it - football.  This is about feeding the dog that's pulling the whole damn sled.

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hit_that_line on June 15, 2016, 08:25:55 PM
This issue will be way oversubscribed. Probably have to go out beyond 30 to get a >4 TEY.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Loma on June 15, 2016, 09:03:25 PM
My interpretation of the letter:

Houston Nutt is the best coach we can get. We are pitiful little Arkansas.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: billy_ocean_fan on June 15, 2016, 09:25:07 PM
All of this could have been avoided with a a little paint on that god-awful Broyle's center yellow brick.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: wmr on June 15, 2016, 11:57:40 PM
All of this could have been avoided with a a little paint on that god-awful Broyle's center yellow brick.

 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 16, 2016, 04:22:27 AM
You really are the biggest blowhard asshole on this board.

No, no one should ever be guaranteed a raise especially some of the most recession, economic downturn proofed ones. Many Americans have actually seen wages lowered and health care costs rise compared to a bunch of whiney asses bitching about only getting 2 percent every year. Oh boo hoo. If that offends you, too bad.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Thin Red Swine on June 16, 2016, 05:20:36 AM
My interpretation of the letter:

Houston Nutt is the best coach we can get. We are pitiful little Arkansas.

 :thumbup:

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogHead McCormick on June 16, 2016, 07:28:28 AM
My interpretation of the letter:

Houston Nutt is the best coach we can get. We are pitiful little Arkansas.

Last gasp of the GOBN?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 16, 2016, 07:39:54 AM
They seem a bit confused, first they bitch about it only being 3,000 seats and then use the stadium is already too big argument. It's all a bit disingenuous because these are supposedly smart folk and they already know what type of seats these are. I can't wait to see the consternation of this group when we drop over 100 million on BWA and actually shrink the overall capacity. BWA is next. New Concourses, club seating and corresponding areas, loading docks and dressing rooms, ect, ect, ect. All to make it a full fledged multipurpose arena.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: geohul on June 16, 2016, 08:26:49 AM
I don't want to hear bitching about a 2 percent raise by staff members when many of us haven't sniffed a 2 percent per annum raise since 2008. Got Damn that pissed me off. You unhappy? Find another fucking job. That's gov't and gov't connected jobs in a fucking nutshell. Folks would have loved those raise elsewhere. Raising health cost? Congrats Obama voting motherfuckers, just wait till the next round of increases, pucker up bitches. Academics and their cush jobs, got damn.
Sorry if I triggered a sore spot for you.  What I said came of as entitled and that wasn't my intention.  I'm thankful everyday I come to work that I have a good job and food on the table.  The point I was attempting to make was that we are losing some of our better faculty to schools like A&M and Texas because our faculty pay is some of the lowest in the country.  I don't have kids, but a lot of you do.  I'd like for our University to be a place where our students are taught by great thinkers, scientists, engineers etc.  If we keep faculty like that we enrich the entire state, and prepare our citizens for bigger and better.  The arts & science program just saw a combined 200+ years of teaching experience either retire or leave for greener pastures.  Without competitive salaries we are going to end up with some bottom of the barrel candidates to fill those positions.  I'm not suggesting you can't get a great education here.  I'm suggesting that if they don't improve faculty salaries, that may not be the case much longer.  We don't blink twice when the football coach gets a million dollar raise, but our engineering professor can't get a 4% raise without people being pissed off.
 
Staff salaries are equally problematic.  The turnover is ridiculously high and it's becoming difficult to retain talented people.  We have folks who have been here 20, or 30+ years either taking early retirement, or leaving for greener pastures.  People like our Athletics maintenance staff who keep the facilities up and running.  Or our Facilities skilled trades folks who know the infrastructure like the back of their hands and help contractors build some of the best buildings on campus (including the the stadium upgrade).  Or our custodians who make just under $18k a year.  That whopping 2% raise nets them an extra $360.00 a year.  They are paid about $986.00 take home once a month if they choose to abstain from any retirement contribution (which as of July 1 is no longer an option because we are now being forced to put 1% into our retirement accounts with an additional 1% being mandatory every year for 5 years).  These are the folks who would rather go out and bust their asses cleaning up after ungrateful assholes, than try to file for disability, or game the entitlement systems.  They are the same folks in line at our campus food bank near the end of every month because it's fucking hard to make $986.00 a month stretch for 30 days and pay your bills without being on food stamps or some other form of welfare.     

I'm probably wasting my time, and have only served to piss you off further, but I felt like I'd give it a shot anyway.  Now in the time honored Woopig tradition, I'd just like to say go fuck yourself.   ;D
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Cerdo on June 16, 2016, 08:37:50 AM
I think you guys are talking past each other when you're talking about U of A jobs, as in the administration jobs in academia vs working hourly at the Physical plant. 

 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 16, 2016, 08:45:07 AM
Sorry if I triggered a sore spot for you.  What I said came of as entitled and that wasn't my intention.  I'm thankful everyday I come to work that I have a good job and food on the table.  The point I was attempting to make was that we are losing some of our better faculty to schools like A&M and Texas because our faculty pay is some of the lowest in the country.  I don't have kids, but a lot of you do.  I'd like for our University to be a place where our students are taught by great thinkers, scientists, engineers etc.  If we keep faculty like that we enrich the entire state, and prepare our citizens for bigger and better.  The arts & science program just saw a combined 200+ years of teaching experience either retire or leave for greener pastures.  Without competitive salaries we are going to end up with some bottom of the barrel candidates to fill those positions.  I'm not suggesting you can't get a great education here.  I'm suggesting that if they don't improve faculty salaries, that may not be the case much longer.  We don't blink twice when the football coach gets a million dollar raise, but our engineering professor can't get a 4% raise without people being pissed off.
 
Staff salaries are equally problematic.  The turnover is ridiculously high and it's becoming difficult to retain talented people.  We have folks who have been here 20, or 30+ years either taking early retirement, or leaving for greener pastures.  People like our Athletics maintenance staff who keep the facilities up and running.  Or our Facilities skilled trades folks who know the infrastructure like the back of their hands and help contractors build some of the best buildings on campus (including the the stadium upgrade).  Or our custodians who make just under $18k a year.  That whopping 2% raise nets them an extra $360.00 a year.  They are paid about $986.00 take home once a month if they choose to abstain from any retirement contribution (which as of July 1 is no longer an option because we are now being forced to put 1% into our retirement accounts with an additional 1% being mandatory every year for 5 years).  These are the folks who would rather go out and bust their asses cleaning up after ungrateful assholes, than try to file for disability, or game the entitlement systems.  They are the same folks in line at our campus food bank near the end of every month because it's fucking hard to make $986.00 a month stretch for 30 days and pay your bills without being on food stamps or some other form of welfare.     

I'm probably wasting my time, and have only served to piss you off further, but I felt like I'd give it a shot anyway.  Now in the time honored Woopig tradition, I'd just like to say go fuck yourself.   ;D

Nevermind those custodians can take classes on the cheap and shit. Look if it was about pay, I would have bolted my job long ago. I get flexibility that couldn't dream of at other places that would pay me much more. It's give and take.  I still think Universities are bloated with waste. Let me know when the U of A cuts 10 to 20 percent of it's workforce, maybe the folks left over might be a little more grateful over 2% raises.

And fuck yourself too ;D
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: geohul on June 16, 2016, 08:53:23 AM
Nevermind those custodians can take classes on the cheap and shit.

They actually can't without department approval which some departments will not give.

Look if it was about pay, I would have bolted my job long ago. I get flexibility that couldn't dream of at other places that would pay me much more. It's give and take.  I still think Universities are bloated with waste.

I agree 100% with both parts of this. 


And fuck yourself too ;D
:thumbup:
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 16, 2016, 08:57:56 AM
I think you guys are talking past each other when you're talking about U of A jobs, as in the administration jobs in academia vs working hourly at the Physical plant. 

 

I believe that Administration and Faculty likely has the most waste while the physical plant is understaffed and underpaid, but it's a job and if those jobs compete with "gaming the system" the system needs de-gamed.

We will never compete with the monitor resources of giant state schools like Texas and A&M, they churn out over twice the alumni we would ever hope for. Arkansas needs to get good at replacing with quality up and comers because that will always be a problem.

They actually can't without department approval which some departments will not give.

 :thumbup:

Then that's a problem these Pryor folk need to take up cause that's bullshit.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Cerdo on June 16, 2016, 09:02:40 AM
They actually can't without department approval which some departments will not give.


If that is indeed true, it is reprehensible and the person who denies another a chance to better themselves, working in academia of all places, that person needs to be fired and publically shamed. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar on June 16, 2016, 10:13:21 AM
Board approves 8-2
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 16, 2016, 10:30:05 AM
No, no one should ever be guaranteed a raise especially some of the most recession, economic downturn proofed ones. Many Americans have actually seen wages lowered and health care costs rise compared to a bunch of whiney asses bitching about only getting 2 percent every year. Oh boo hoo. If that offends you, too bad.

insurance, parking and mandatory retirement increases coupled with no pay increase = lower salary.  the university isn't just some fantasy land workplace you think it is. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BASS on June 16, 2016, 10:31:25 AM
For the uninformed, what does an athletics facility expansion paid for by private donations and bonds that will be repaid by athletic revenue have to do with academic staff pay.

it doesn't.  which is what makes the ad in the demazette quite puzzling.  it appears to have been written by suzy lazyass that doesn't know jackshit, not former trustees of the ua system.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 16, 2016, 10:35:51 AM
I believe that Administration and Faculty likely has the most waste while the physical plant is understaffed and underpaid, but it's a job and if those jobs compete with "gaming the system" the system needs de-gamed.

We will never compete with the monitor resources of giant state schools like Texas and A&M, they churn out over twice the alumni we would ever hope for. Arkansas needs to get good at replacing with quality up and comers because that will always be a problem.

Then that's a problem these Pryor folk need to take up cause that's bullshit.

you have no clue what you are talking about.  student enrollment has risen 50% over the last 10 years while staff has increased by less than 5%.  there is no widespread waste like you think there is.

If that is indeed true, it is reprehensible and the person who denies another a chance to better themselves, working in academia of all places, that person needs to be fired and publically shamed. 

this part is most certainly true. the BOT gives the abiliity to have cheaper tuition, but it also gives the departments discretion over letting their employees take advantage of the discounts. some departments will not allow them to take classes during work hours or at all, which severely limits their available classes if they are working towards an undergraduate degree.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hit_that_line on June 16, 2016, 10:47:04 AM
There are business professors making $300K+ teaching one class who have never worked in industry.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on June 16, 2016, 10:51:16 AM
Board approves 8-2


I don't think there was ever any real question, despite Pryor's opposition, that it was going to pass.  Hell, they'd already picked a general contractor for it. 

I doubt you'll ever see the Trustees vote against anything big that the athletic department wants (except maybe who the general contractor on this particular project is going to be). 

UPDATE: UA Board approves Razorback Stadium expansion over Pryor objections  (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/06/16/pryor-comes-out-swinging-on-razorback-stadium-expansion)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 16, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
There are business professors making $300K+ teaching one class who have never worked in industry.

False. 

And we have to compete with businesses to keep these people.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Razor B on June 16, 2016, 10:56:28 AM
If given the choice to watch something online or on cable I pick cable.  I can do picture in picture, record it, rewind plays, etc.  I feel like people think online is the way we are going by choice but it's not.  It's because so many games are not available on cable, yet there are a lot of ESPN/sports alternate channels that seem to never be used, which we as consumers still pay for.  Cable companies list them as available channels.  Don't get me wrong, I like the opportunity to see a game online but depending where I am that can be difficult.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: notaslibro on June 16, 2016, 10:59:54 AM
I doubt you'll ever see the Trustees vote against anything big that the athletic department wants rl]

I doubt you'll ever see the Trustees asked to vote on a matter if Long & Co. haven't already gotten the support of a majority of members.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on June 16, 2016, 11:03:35 AM
I doubt you'll ever see the Trustees asked to vote on a matter if Long & Co. haven't already gotten the support of a majority of members.


Good point.

Except for that general contractor thing. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BASS on June 16, 2016, 11:04:06 AM
If given the choice to watch something online or on cable I pick cable.  I can do picture in picture, record it, rewind plays, etc.  I feel like people think online is the way we are going by choice but it's not.  It's because so many games are not available on cable, yet there are a lot of ESPN/sports alternate channels that seem to never be used, which we as consumers still pay for.  Cable companies list them as available channels.  Don't get me wrong, I like the opportunity to see a game online but depending where I am that can be difficult.

I'm with you, i'd much rather watch on tv in my living room.  its the millenials' fault.  those little entitled fuckers can't put their phones down.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on June 16, 2016, 11:28:45 AM

A slew of pay raises were also approved today.  I didn't realize Jimmy Dykes makes so much more than Dave Van Horn. 

Quote
By way of example: Chancellor Joseph Steinmetz's base pay was moved to $450,000 (with deferred compensation the job is worth more than $700,000 according to the contract he signed when hired).

 By way of comparison, the maximum pay list approved today (the figures include potential bonuses for post-season wins) included:

 * $1.865 million for Athletic Director Jeff Long

 * $4.6 million for football coach Bret Bielema

 * $3.05 million for basketball coach Mike Anderson

 * $933,333 for football offensive coordinator Dan Enos.

 * $453,333 for strength and conditioning coach Ben Herbert

 * $400,000 for assistant football coach Barry Lunney

 * $413,333 for assistant football coach Reginald Mitchell

 * $466,667 for assistant football coach Paul Rhoads

 * $533,333 for assistant football coach Michael Smith

 * $1,066,667 for Robert Smith, football defensive coordinator.

 * $832,000 for women's basketball coach Jimmy Dykes.

 * $588,600 for baseball coach Dave Van Horn

 Elsewhere, Todd Shields, dean of the Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences will now knock down $257,452, but he need not win any post-season games to attain that maximum.

G. David Gearhart, the former chancellor, was bumped to $343,248 for a nine-month contract beginning Aug. 15.

After stadium vote, dozens of pay raises for athletics (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/06/16/after-stadium-vote-dozens-of-pay-raises-for-athletics#more)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: OP on June 16, 2016, 11:35:41 AM
If given the choice to watch something online or on cable I pick cable.  I can do picture in picture, record it, rewind plays, etc.  I feel like people think online is the way we are going by choice but it's not.  It's because so many games are not available on cable, yet there are a lot of ESPN/sports alternate channels that seem to never be used, which we as consumers still pay for.  Cable companies list them as available channels.  Don't get me wrong, I like the opportunity to see a game online but depending where I am that can be difficult.

Disagree.  Not a gamer at all.  Got Sling because about the only thing I watch is live sports, and it's cheap with no contract so I can drop it when Razorback baseball is over and pick it up again when football season starts.  While you probably can't do pic-in-pic or record, a lot of networks offer video-on-demand and have rewind/pause features so there is some flexibility there and will likely improve as more people cross over.

I'm with you, i'd much rather watch on tv in my living room.  its the millenials' fault.  those little entitled fuckers can't put their phones down.

You can watch online services on your TV (except maybe if you're still using an old Curtis Mathes).  I don't even have a "mobile device."
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: OP on June 16, 2016, 11:39:33 AM
A slew of pay raises were also approved today.  I didn't realize Jimmy Dykes makes so much more than Dave Van Horn. 

Seems a travesty at first blush, but I wonder if DVH makes a lot more "outside income" than Dykes.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: NotoriousPIG on June 16, 2016, 11:47:49 AM
Of all those Strength and Conditioning coach at 400k seems like the best deal.  Probably  a bit more stable even if new coaches typically bring in their own guy but less pressure for sure.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: geohul on June 16, 2016, 11:59:41 AM
A slew of pay raises were also approved today.  I didn't realize Jimmy Dykes makes so much more than Dave Van Horn. 

After stadium vote, dozens of pay raises for athletics (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/06/16/after-stadium-vote-dozens-of-pay-raises-for-athletics#more)
00)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hit_that_line on June 16, 2016, 12:28:19 PM
False. 

And we have to compete with businesses to keep these people.
Truth. Can think of a few just off the top of my head. Never worked in industry and teach one class. Spend the rest of their time on research bc that's how the Princeton Review assigns rankings. Almost everything I know was through pounding the pavement making my own contacts and real world experience. 90% of the kids who contact me ab jobs hardly know a thing.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 16, 2016, 01:12:50 PM
Truth. Can think of a few just off the top of my head. Never worked in industry and teach one class. Spend the rest of their time on research bc that's how the Princeton Review assigns rankings. Almost everything I know was through pounding the pavement making my own contacts and real world experience. 90% of the kids who contact me ab jobs hardly know a thing.

the only people in WCOB that make over 300k are the dean and a couple of the department chairs. Department chairs, while faculty, are mostly administrative so if they happen to teach 1 class that's a luxury for the department.  run of the mill faculty do not come close to that.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 16, 2016, 01:25:38 PM
There are business professors making $300K+ teaching one class who have never worked in industry.

Yeah that's not correct.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 16, 2016, 01:27:56 PM
Truth. Can think of a few just off the top of my head.

Names please.  And understand any names you list can be verified.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 16, 2016, 01:34:55 PM
Truth. Can think of a few just off the top of my head. Never worked in industry and teach one class. Spend the rest of their time on research bc that's how the Princeton Review assigns rankings. Almost everything I know was through pounding the pavement making my own contacts and real world experience. 90% of the kids who contact me ab jobs hardly know a thing.

My community college, U of A, and Memphis State educated Brother has ivy leaugers working under him that he rants about all the time.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogHead McCormick on June 16, 2016, 01:35:23 PM
Can you watch Vue in a browser on your pc?
It's not real clear on their site if that is possible.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 16, 2016, 01:37:51 PM
http://www.arkansasonline.com/right2know/colleges/ (http://www.arkansasonline.com/right2know/colleges/)

The Walton College of Business has 4 employees making over 300K; one is the dean and two others are heads of their department.  There is 1 professor making over 300K.  How many actual classes he teaches I do not know.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: bigghurtt on June 16, 2016, 01:48:12 PM
http://www.arkansasonline.com/right2know/colleges/ (http://www.arkansasonline.com/right2know/colleges/)

The Walton College of Business has 4 employees making over 300K; one is the dean and two others are heads of their department.  There is 1 professor making over 300K.  How many actual classes he teaches I do not know.

Does this factor in faculty discounts at participating local businesses? 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 16, 2016, 02:06:37 PM
Does this factor in faculty discounts at participating local businesses?

Only the best of the best of the best get bennies like that.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 16, 2016, 02:09:22 PM
http://www.arkansasonline.com/right2know/colleges/ (http://www.arkansasonline.com/right2know/colleges/)
  How many actual classes he teaches I do not know.

he holds an endowed professorial chair and teaches doctoral level classes and oversees dissertation work.  he is a rockstar.  being cited over 52,000 times alone from google scholar

in case you are interested.  http://www.vvenkatesh.com/



Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: ArkGuy on June 16, 2016, 02:39:11 PM
Back when the WCOB was just the College of Bidness (and the building was simply the BA), two of my Finance and Banking professors were Dr. Money and Dr. Banks.

Carry on.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Hogeye_Pierce on June 16, 2016, 02:40:56 PM
Back when the WCOB was just the College of Bidness (and the building was simply the BA), two of my Finance and Banking professors were Dr. Money and Dr. Banks.

Carry on.

And the former head of the Urology department at UAMS was Dr. Headstream.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 16, 2016, 02:48:13 PM
False. 

And we have to compete with businesses to keep these people.

So false it's crazy.   Yet many many many people think this....

13.7% illiteracy rate for the win!

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: big_pig on June 16, 2016, 04:42:07 PM
Even in the official artwork the upper deck corners are only half full
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DRYANKNPULL on June 16, 2016, 04:47:57 PM
People are so good at telling others how to spend their money. This expansion will not price anybody out of going to a game. It's not going to affect University employee salaries. It's about keeping up. The whole thing is going to be funded by people that chose to fund it. 

I'm all for giving proffs and janitors raises. I hope the powers that be are attuned to the needs of the work force involved with educating 30,000 students and will seek funds to make sure we offer a great education at a competitive price. That's what they offered me 25 years ago, and I'm happy that I chose it.

If we want to win and keep up in the sec, we will have to continually spend money and upgrade. It is up to the people that are willing to give money to make sure that it happens.

If you want to take your family to a game, this won't hurt you one bit.  It will make a difference with the product we have on the field.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BEvERage on June 16, 2016, 05:02:00 PM
Anyone sit in the East indoor club seats? I was thinking about it this year.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: jacobp on June 16, 2016, 06:18:07 PM
Anyone sit in the East indoor club seats? I was thinking about it this year.
I've sat there a couple times. Hated it since the Windows don't open. Moved down to Lower level at halftime both games
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: SunshineSweaterman on June 16, 2016, 06:25:17 PM
Anyone sit in the East indoor club seats? I was thinking about it this year.

Yes, it is not a fun experience because of the closed windows. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BEvERage on June 16, 2016, 06:28:48 PM
Yes, it is not a fun experience because of the closed windows.
Thanks, that is what I was thinking.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tampa TechnoHOG on June 16, 2016, 07:30:35 PM
Does this factor in faculty discounts at participating local businesses?

You can not place a price tag on the Sonic hook up.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Arkansas Proud on June 16, 2016, 10:58:43 PM
Anyone sit in the East indoor club seats? I was thinking about it this year.

It's awesome for thirty degree games against UTEP.

It would suck other than that. The windows are so thick you can't even hear the crowd noise.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DrMongoose on June 16, 2016, 11:10:01 PM
Seems a travesty at first blush, but I wonder if DVH makes a lot more "outside income" than Dykes.
From what? Both have camps but I believe DVH gives the vast majority of it to his staff.

What outside income would a college baseball coach get?

Holy hell, that is just crazy ass money for jimmy that could have lured final four coaches with proven track records in a sport with little to no fan base.

Big fan of Mike but this year did not merit any increase in pay.

And long is making $1.8 million?.

When the tv money starts to shrink and it will at some point, it is going to be financial nightmare for a lot of athletic departments.

Also for this kind of scratch, it would nice to see some actual championships won.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Aporkalypse_Now on June 17, 2016, 12:42:08 AM
It's awesome for thirty degree games against UTEP.

It would suck other than that. The windows are so thick you can't even hear the crowd noise.

I used to sit in the East Outdoor Club and the seats/atomsphere are great and the overhang keeps you dry and helps with the wind.  The concessions/amenities are lacking but I thought that was supposed to be improved with this renovation.

Not only was the atmosphere terrible up in the indoor club but I don't like the seats, they are really tight and there's no good place to put your drink.  It was uncomfortable.  The amenities are really nice up there, though.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Razor B on June 17, 2016, 06:14:39 AM
From what? Both have camps but I believe DVH gives the vast majority of it to his staff.

What outside income would a college baseball coach get?

Holy hell, that is just crazy ass money for jimmy that could have lured final four coaches with proven track records in a sport with little to no fan base.

Big fan of Mike but this year did not merit any increase in pay.

And long is making $1.8 million?.

When the tv money starts to shrink and it will at some point, it is going to be financial nightmare for a lot of athletic departments.

Also for this kind of scratch, it would nice to see some actual championships won.

I cannot believe Long pulls in over $1.8 million. 2015/2016 was not a good year in Razorback sports when you factor in losing to Toledo and TTech at home for football and the seasons basketball and baseball had. I don't get it.

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hogfan58 on June 17, 2016, 07:20:23 AM
It's awesome for thirty degree games against UTEP.

It would suck other than that. The windows are so thick you can't even hear the crowd noise.

And thus you cannot effect the atmosphere inside the stadium. Other than the $$ you spend for the tix/donation/concessions....you might as well stay home and watch on TV.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tonic on June 17, 2016, 07:27:30 AM
I cannot believe Long pulls in over $1.8 million. 2015/2016 was not a good year in Razorback sports when you factor in losing to Toledo and TTech at home for football and the seasons basketball and baseball had. I don't get it.



What is the state of the athletic program as a whole? Is it profitable? Is it stable?

The Athletic Director's top priority is profit, winning is in the top 3. Jeff Long is considered one of the best in the country, he's going to make plenty of money anywhere he wants to go.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Clark on June 17, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
What is the state of the athletic program as a whole? Is it profitable? Is it stable?

The Athletic Director's top priority is profit, winning is in the top 3. Jeff Long is considered one of the best in the country, he's going to make plenty of money anywhere he wants to go.
Don't waste your time with the mouth breathers.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 17, 2016, 08:10:35 AM
How come no one posted the Nate Allen piece against the expansion. My kind has been completely change now, not that it matters. :sarcasm:
http://m.thecabin.net/sports/2016-06-15/nate-allen-pryor-has-strong-reasons-oppose-stadium-expansion#gsc.tab=0
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Ty Webb on June 17, 2016, 08:14:48 AM
How come no one posted the Nate Allen piece against the expansion.
Because it's Nate Allen?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Cerdo on June 17, 2016, 08:20:24 AM
I always wonder who reads that lame column he writes.  I skip past it every single time. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DirkPiggler on June 17, 2016, 08:29:13 AM
I always wonder who reads that lame column he writes.  I skip past it every single time.

Haven't read it yet, but I'm sure there's some kind of sarcastic slap at the admin for moving the press seats from courtside to the corner at BWA. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BASS on June 17, 2016, 09:32:03 AM
How come no one posted the Nate Allen piece against the expansion. My kind has been completely change now, not that it matters. :sarcasm:
http://m.thecabin.net/sports/2016-06-15/nate-allen-pryor-has-strong-reasons-oppose-stadium-expansion#gsc.tab=0

you have to be an inbred fucktard to comprehend what nate allen writes.  we runnoft most of those types on this board so you are speaking to a relatively small crowd .
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogHead McCormick on June 17, 2016, 09:42:04 AM
How come no one posted the Nate Allen piece against the expansion. My kind has been completely change now, not that it matters. :sarcasm:
http://m.thecabin.net/sports/2016-06-15/nate-allen-pryor-has-strong-reasons-oppose-stadium-expansion#gsc.tab=0

Good Lord, nate is a putz. What a shitty article.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 17, 2016, 09:43:23 AM
seriously?   a "we shouldn't listen to the yankee" take?

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 17, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
seriously?   a "we shouldn't listen to the yankee" take?

fresh.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 17, 2016, 09:56:36 AM
fresh.

one day the south will have to realize and accept that the war was lost.

i anxiously await HRW to tell me differently.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hogsrunwild on June 17, 2016, 10:06:01 AM
one day the south will have to realize and accept that the war was lost.

i anxiously await HRW to tell me differently.


You aren't even folksy
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 17, 2016, 11:07:24 AM
From what? Both have camps but I believe DVH gives the vast majority of it to his staff.

What outside income would a college baseball coach get?

Holy hell, that is just crazy ass money for jimmy that could have lured final four coaches with proven track records in a sport with little to no fan base.

Big fan of Mike but this year did not merit any increase in pay.

And long is making $1.8 million?.

When the tv money starts to shrink and it will at some point, it is going to be financial nightmare for a lot of athletic departments.

Also for this kind of scratch, it would nice to see some actual championships won.

That is my only issue with this costly of an expansion project financed by bonds.  There is no guarantee that ticket sales are going to cover the cost and I'm afraid that those huge tv contracts are going to shrink.  Just think it's a little bit of a risky deal at this time.  We'll see.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: ArkGuy on June 17, 2016, 11:11:24 AM
They way I read that list of salaries is that they all include incentive bonuses.  In other words, they are theoretical maximums.  Most years, DVH likely takes home more than Jimmy D.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 17, 2016, 11:16:31 AM
That is my only issue with this costly of an expansion project financed by bonds.  There is no guarantee that ticket sales are going to cover the cost and I'm afraid that those huge tv contracts are going to shrink.  Just think it's a little bit of a risky deal at this time.  We'll see.

uh, SEC just signed a 15 year deal that paid each school over 30M per year for the contracts FIRST YEAR.

i think it'll be okay.   
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: VegasHog on June 17, 2016, 11:18:14 AM
They way I read that list of salaries is that they all include incentive bonuses.  In other words, they are theoretical maximums.  Most years, DVH likely takes home more than Jimmy D.

exactly. and all but a couple (two new assistant football coaches) of those were already approved for this fiscal year. the writer of that article seemed to have a bit of an agenda.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on June 17, 2016, 11:29:39 AM
the writer of that article seemed to have a bit of an agenda.


He'd probably tell you straight out that he does. 

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Austin Nichols on June 17, 2016, 11:31:37 AM
All this money being thrown around, can we round up one of the decimal points and get that fancy new ARKANSAS RAZORBACKS font that Nike created for us put in each endzone?

Even better, maybe go back to real grass?  I think we're down to us and Mizzou that still play on ground up tires.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Joe Swine on June 17, 2016, 12:29:53 PM
All this money being thrown around, can we round up one of the decimal points and get that fancy new ARKANSAS RAZORBACKS font that Nike created for us put in each endzone?

Even better, maybe go back to real grass?  I think we're down to us and Mizzou that still play on ground up tires.

Yup.  Horticulture Dept grows some fine golf turf.  They could maintain and replenish the football field.  Just one way for athletics and academics to help each other.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hit_that_line on June 17, 2016, 12:35:20 PM
That is my only issue with this costly of an expansion project financed by bonds.  There is no guarantee that ticket sales are going to cover the cost and I'm afraid that those huge tv contracts are going to shrink.  Just think it's a little bit of a risky deal at this time.  We'll see.
Issue will be way oversubscribed and the DSCR on these will be very high. Coupon is going to be very low. This is a smart way to finance cap improvements. Let me put it this way, if this deal blows up it won't matter that we can't repay bc we'll be back to the barter system. This is not a risky issue in the muni world.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar on June 17, 2016, 12:53:13 PM
I always get a good laugh when folks get all worrisome over the purse strings, but will them lambaste someone with "lil ol' arkysaw" talk when they suggest that winning 7-10 games per year is ok.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 17, 2016, 01:24:10 PM
they suggest that winning 7-10 games per year is ok.

Who is suggesting that winning 7 to 10 games a year is not ok?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: notaslibro on June 17, 2016, 01:27:00 PM
you have to be an inbred fucktard to comprehend what nate allen writes.  we runnoft most of those types on this board so you are speaking to a relatively small crowd .
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 17, 2016, 01:28:29 PM
ouch....Sherri getting some guff.....

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: notaslibro on June 17, 2016, 01:29:33 PM
ouch....Sherri getting some guff.....

Gut + Muff
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on June 17, 2016, 01:30:19 PM
Gut + Muff

ahh man.   why you gonna dog Swahili's homegirl like that?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on June 17, 2016, 01:30:26 PM
ouch....Sherri getting some guff.....

Ha I didn't put 2 and 2 together til you mentioned it.  That's pretty darn funny.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: woodhog14 on June 17, 2016, 01:48:04 PM
From what? Both have camps but I believe DVH gives the vast majority of it to his staff.

What outside income would a college baseball coach get?
DVH gets income from Easton as well.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DrMongoose on June 17, 2016, 05:32:06 PM
DVH gets income from Easton as well.

He may well but it likely isn't a whole lot.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Aporkalypse_Now on June 17, 2016, 05:43:38 PM
What is the state of the athletic program as a whole? Is it profitable? Is it stable?

The Athletic Director's top priority is profit, winning is in the top 3. Jeff Long is considered one of the best in the country, he's going to make plenty of money anywhere he wants to go.

In the end he makes that much because that's his market value, if he didn't it would be hard to keep Texas, Stanford, Michigan or now Florida from hiring him away.  His name comes up for the top 10 jobs regularly because he's considered a top 10 (or even 5) AD at a non-top 10 school.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 17, 2016, 07:26:23 PM
it'll be interesting to see what UF does now that Foley is retiring.  they'll throw $$$$$$$$$$$$$ at whomever.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DrMongoose on June 17, 2016, 08:16:11 PM
In the end he makes that much because that's his market value, if he didn't it would be hard to keep Texas, Stanford, Michigan or now Florida from hiring him away.  His name comes up for the top 10 jobs regularly because he's considered a top 10 (or even 5) AD at a non-top 10 school.

Michigan hasn't called twice and Stanford never called.
Texas. as far as anyone knows, is the only school to have called.

If he can improve his lot so be it, let's not act like if he leaves that the program would be set back 10 years.



Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Razor B on June 17, 2016, 08:45:11 PM
If he can improve his lot so be it, let's not act like if he leaves that the program would be set back 10 years.

For some reason a lot of Arkansas fans think people at the UofA have to have a job for life and retire here.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tonic on June 18, 2016, 08:25:27 AM
Michigan hasn't called twice and Stanford never called.
Texas. as far as anyone knows, is the only school to have called.

If he can improve his lot so be it, let's not act like if he leaves that the program would be set back 10 years.





No one said we would be set back if Long left. The question was why did Jeff Long make so much money. That was answered in two posts.

For some reason a lot of Arkansas fans think people at the UofA have to have a job for life and retire here.

What has Jeff Long done that was so horrible for him to be run off? Your statement makes no sense and has nothing to do with the question you originally asked.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Razor B on June 18, 2016, 11:38:20 AM
No one said we would be set back if Long left. The question was why did Jeff Long make so much money. That was answered in two posts.

What has Jeff Long done that was so horrible for him to be run off? Your statement makes no sense and has nothing to do with the question you originally asked.

Because I don't think he's an $1.8 million dollar AD that means I want to run him off?  I don't remember a time when all three sports were struggling.  We are paying people well and the results have yet to come.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tonic on June 18, 2016, 02:27:00 PM
Because I don't think he's an $1.8 million dollar AD that means I want to run him off?  I don't remember a time when all three sports were struggling.  We are paying people well and the results have yet to come.

You dont know anything about this subject if this is your thought process.
Title: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Razor B on June 18, 2016, 03:32:48 PM
You dont know anything about this subject if this is your thought process.

I know about a dozen people that have worked for him or are currently working for him. Jeff Long is a very nice guy and I think he's a good person. As Mongoose said, we wouldn't be set back if he went to another University.  What has he done for $1.8 million that another AD couldn't do?

So many people act like we are lucky to have someone. Did it ever occur to you that maybe some of these people are lucky to have Arkansas? It's a better job than you think.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: wvhawgfan on June 19, 2016, 01:50:35 PM
Just getting the Athletic Department into this century and out of the GOBN system that JFB let run the show for way too long was worth every bit of the salary he has drawn so far.

That doesn't even count the program running a surplus every year, actually getting good national press, and seemingly having good coaches for most of the sports.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on June 19, 2016, 01:58:44 PM
Lil'Wally tries to outsuck Nate:

David Pryor knew he was beat. He knew it from the start, but he spoke from his heart, picked up support from Cliff Gibson, but they went down strongly but quietly Thursday as the University of Arkansas board of trustees voted 8-2 for a $160 million expansion to Reynolds Razorback Stadium.
It wasn't denied the project most likely will be more in the neighborhood of $200 million when completed.
Before doing the math, which shows that is more than $60,000 for each of the proposed 3,000-plus additional seats -- all in luxury suites most of us will only see through binoculars -- understand a big part of that money is for the new athletic facility that will have underground parking so, as one former trustee said, it will keep the administration from getting wet.
Yes, several former board members, in a Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette guest editorial and letter to the statewide Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, urged the current board not to spend $160 million on football.
Rather, they asked to consider using it for updating actual academic buildings, raises for underpaid teachers and professors, and other things such as science equipment.
Like Pryor and Gibson, they were ignored.
In the aftermath, and judging by comments, emails and texts, this campaign might not have won a statewide election.
Numerous negative comments have been heard and read, and some of those directed at Athletic Director Jeff Long are not flattering.
Like, Long is a money-grubber, a Yankee, an athletic director with too many layers between him and the real fan base, and a guy out of touch with the state of Arkansas.
Well, the fact is, Long was doing what he is paid to do -- look out for the athletic department. That's why he's called the athletic director.
The president of the UA system, Donald Bobbitt, and Chancellor Joe Steinmetz, who opened Thursday's meeting supporting the expansion, were apparently 100 percent on board. Their titles are above that of athletic director.
How this particularly large expense will help win more football games and produce more revenue remains to be seen, but it seems a foregone conclusion that when completed it would be almost impossible to play any more games in central Arkansas.
It is obvious fans are not going to support their Hogs in War Memorial Stadium against teams such as Alcorn State, but then again, fans in Northwest Arkansas wouldn't either.
There is no doubt downsizing to one central Arkansas game is having an effect on the Razorbacks Nation in central, east and southeast Arkansas.
The Razorbacks are not necessarily losing fans who went to school in Fayetteville, but more likely the fans who felt like they were part of what was once a statewide program.
If the UA wasn't feeling some sort of pinch, then why did the Razorback Foundation recently announce it had hired two women to run a new satellite office in Little Rock. The Foundation tried to hire a former Razorback, but the salary was more in line with a recent graduate.
It's also not going to help the UA that the $120 million bond issue was awarded to a banking institution headquartered in Boston, rather than one of the great financial institutions in Arkansas, according to multiple sources. J.P. Morgan apparently was the low bidder but just barely.
Pryor, a former Arkansas governor and U.S. senator, spoke out for the University of Arkansas but not against the Razorbacks. He got one supporter, Gibson, but that wasn't enough.
The eight trustees who voted for the expansion might have gotten it right, only time will tell.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogHead McCormick on June 19, 2016, 03:35:31 PM
Lil'Wally tries to outsuck Nate:

David Pryor knew he was beat. He knew it from the start, but he spoke from his heart, picked up support from Cliff Gibson, but they went down strongly but quietly Thursday as the University of Arkansas board of trustees voted 8-2 for a $160 million expansion to Reynolds Razorback Stadium.
It wasn't denied the project most likely will be more in the neighborhood of $200 million when completed.
Before doing the math, which shows that is more than $60,000 for each of the proposed 3,000-plus additional seats -- all in luxury suites most of us will only see through binoculars -- understand a big part of that money is for the new athletic facility that will have underground parking so, as one former trustee said, it will keep the administration from getting wet.
Yes, several former board members, in a Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette guest editorial and letter to the statewide Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, urged the current board not to spend $160 million on football.
Rather, they asked to consider using it for updating actual academic buildings, raises for underpaid teachers and professors, and other things such as science equipment.
Like Pryor and Gibson, they were ignored.
In the aftermath, and judging by comments, emails and texts, this campaign might not have won a statewide election.
Numerous negative comments have been heard and read, and some of those directed at Athletic Director Jeff Long are not flattering.
Like, Long is a money-grubber, a Yankee, an athletic director with too many layers between him and the real fan base, and a guy out of touch with the state of Arkansas.
Well, the fact is, Long was doing what he is paid to do -- look out for the athletic department. That's why he's called the athletic director.
The president of the UA system, Donald Bobbitt, and Chancellor Joe Steinmetz, who opened Thursday's meeting supporting the expansion, were apparently 100 percent on board. Their titles are above that of athletic director.
How this particularly large expense will help win more football games and produce more revenue remains to be seen, but it seems a foregone conclusion that when completed it would be almost impossible to play any more games in central Arkansas.
It is obvious fans are not going to support their Hogs in War Memorial Stadium against teams such as Alcorn State, but then again, fans in Northwest Arkansas wouldn't either.
There is no doubt downsizing to one central Arkansas game is having an effect on the Razorbacks Nation in central, east and southeast Arkansas.
The Razorbacks are not necessarily losing fans who went to school in Fayetteville, but more likely the fans who felt like they were part of what was once a statewide program.
If the UA wasn't feeling some sort of pinch, then why did the Razorback Foundation recently announce it had hired two women to run a new satellite office in Little Rock. The Foundation tried to hire a former Razorback, but the salary was more in line with a recent graduate.
It's also not going to help the UA that the $120 million bond issue was awarded to a banking institution headquartered in Boston, rather than one of the great financial institutions in Arkansas, according to multiple sources. J.P. Morgan apparently was the low bidder but just barely.
Pryor, a former Arkansas governor and U.S. senator, spoke out for the University of Arkansas but not against the Razorbacks. He got one supporter, Gibson, but that wasn't enough.
The eight trustees who voted for the expansion might have gotten it right, only time will tell.

Can you still major in journalism?

Why?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HRC on June 19, 2016, 04:05:34 PM
Can you still major in journalism?

Why?

Because blog.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Lurk on June 19, 2016, 04:57:29 PM
Lil'Wally tries to outsuck Nate:

BlahBlahBlah
There is no doubt downsizing to one central Arkansas game is having an effect on the Razorbacks Nation in central, east and southeast Arkansas.
Blah
Bullshit.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Cerdo on June 19, 2016, 04:58:07 PM
from the article:
It is obvious fans are not going to support their Hogs in War Memorial Stadium against teams such as Alcorn State, but then again, fans in Northwest Arkansas wouldn't either.


I always find this to be among the most stupidly snide things people will say in the Great Stadium Debates. 
In recent years, an opponent like Alcorn St typically fills about 70% of either "home" stadium for the Hogs.  In WMS it ends up being like 40k and in RRS it ends up being like 60k.    I'm no math whiz but 20k people is a fairly big difference when either side is trying to paint the other side as shittty fans.... and I say this as a person who feels that the Hogs SHOULD play a game in Central AR once every year or two forever. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tanny Bogus on June 20, 2016, 10:03:23 AM
This is from Scott Varady concerning one error in the editorial letter:

"The plans for the stadium project have never called for the construction of an underground parking garage or a private elevator for Athletic Department staff. While I know this inaccurate assertion did not originate with you, I know you strive to report accurate information, and I wanted to dispel such an unfounded myth. "

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Arkansas Proud on June 20, 2016, 10:40:00 AM
Because I don't think he's an $1.8 million dollar AD that means I want to run him off?  I don't remember a time when all three sports were struggling.  We are paying people well and the results have yet to come.

I agree.  I know Tonic likes to think that there's "so much more", but really, aren't good AD's supposed to generate "maximum income" for the university athletic department while making sure the student-athlete is well-served, while making sure the fan is pleased?

I guess since Tonic so summarily dismissed your post, he thought we were all supposed to know the exact requirements of an AD in the exact order?  I wish he'd "englighten" all of us instead of acting like he knows.

What we know is that the best coaching hire of the last 30 years here was fired b/c they couldn't get along, the football program has sucked or at best been average since, the baseball program has made absolutely no change under Long, and the basketball program is graduating more players.

But we're turning a profit due to the extraordinary efforts on our AD's behalf negotiating a network TV deal that includes all 14 schools in the league, a league that pays equal revenue to all 14 schools and was negotiated by all 14 AD's.  And we're paying that TV revenue to underperforming coaches?  I'm all in favor of retaining underperforming coaches in the "short" term in order to take a chance on a long term great hire like Richardson, Van Horn, DeBriyn, Holtz, Broyles, etc. but does that automatically involve a raise during a season you sucked?  Doesn't make sense to me. 

Oh, and I'm a mouth breather according to Clark because I don't have a friend on staff on the basketball team.  Or had.

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Arkansas Proud on June 20, 2016, 10:43:03 AM
I mean, surely some people here realize that Clark is such "great friends" with Matt that anything he posts regarding the basketball team or the AD that keeps a 1 in 5 coach, might just be a "little bit" biased.

Sorry, I'm mouthbreathing.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 20, 2016, 10:44:01 AM
, the baseball program has made absolutely no change under Long, .

are you drinking this early on a monday?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Hogeye_Pierce on June 20, 2016, 10:45:31 AM

What we know is that the best coaching hire of the last 30 years here was fired b/c they couldn't get along, the football program has sucked or at best been average since.


Boy. Talk about oversimplification. This is why nobody can take anything you say seriously. ::)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: geohul on June 20, 2016, 11:56:24 AM
Academics and their cush jobs, got damn.
This is the part that irritated me slightly.  Anyone that knows me, knows I'm pretty much the opposite of an academic.  I'm not particularly smart, nor overly educated, and I work with some of the realest Arkansans you'll ever meet.  Red State, gun owning, guys that get shit done.  I may not subscribe to all of their beliefs but they are some of the best people I've ever known and they deserve better than they are getting.  That was the point I attempted to convey, but that was poorly explained by my academic ass.     
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 20, 2016, 02:47:03 PM
This is the part that irritated me slightly.  Anyone that knows me, knows I'm pretty much the opposite of an academic.  I'm not particularly smart, nor overly educated, and I work with some of the realest Arkansans you'll ever meet.  Red State, gun owning, guys that get shit done.  I may not subscribe to all of their beliefs but they are some of the best people I've ever known and they deserve better than they are getting.  That was the point I attempted to convey, but that was poorly explained by my academic ass.   

you'll see my response above and see that it irritated me as well.  it isn't like the movies.  >:(
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Clark on June 20, 2016, 03:18:00 PM
I mean, surely some people here realize that Clark is such "great friends" with Matt that anything he posts regarding the basketball team or the AD that keeps a 1 in 5 coach, might just be a "little bit" biased.

Sorry, I'm mouthbreathing.
You're the Skip Bayless of Woopig.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Joe Swine on June 20, 2016, 03:27:51 PM
you'll see my response above and see that it irritated me as well.  it isn't like the movies.  >:(

You can take over a few classes from the older men, but until you start plowing pertinent wives, you really aren't working. The broad, inviting avenue to man's job is through his wife, and don't you forget it.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: billy_ocean_fan on June 20, 2016, 04:48:53 PM
The score is now:

Wallace: -1
Nate: -2

The Baylor comment...just wow.

http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2016/jun/20/board-dissent-expansion-not-total-loss/ (http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2016/jun/20/board-dissent-expansion-not-total-loss/)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogHead McCormick on June 20, 2016, 07:01:36 PM
The score is now:

Wallace: -1
Nate: -2

The Baylor comment...just wow.

http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2016/jun/20/board-dissent-expansion-not-total-loss/ (http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2016/jun/20/board-dissent-expansion-not-total-loss/)

So 2 trustees voted no. That's not rubber stamp.
Is Prior still on the board? Are any of those others with him?
Then why is Nate making it seem like the AD got away with something? Former BOT members are just that. Former. As in no longer allowed a vote.

Nates' drivel always has a huge, lying slant.

He's a POS writer, and any paper that prints his column is a POS too.

The whole entire media is nothing but shit.

I thought journalists were supposed to be fair and balanced. Was supposed to be one the cornerstones of the country. When was the last time anyone saw a piece that was fair and balanced?

Fucking joke.

The censor should change media to cocksuckers.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Pumpkin Escobar on June 20, 2016, 09:39:14 PM
Nate's just mad that since numbNutts left, he hasn't been treated special and precious.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Nolapigz on June 20, 2016, 11:02:30 PM
The dildo I bought when I was 16 should change media to cocksuckers.

(http://reactiongif.org/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/10/Confused-GIF.gif)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on June 21, 2016, 08:11:03 AM
Nate's just mad that since numbNutts left, he hasn't been treated special and precious.

and that they took away the free food for "journalists". 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogHead McCormick on June 21, 2016, 08:13:38 AM
(http://reactiongif.org/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/10/Confused-GIF.gif)

Left it in your mom.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tonic on June 21, 2016, 08:44:37 AM
I agree.  I know Tonic likes to think that there's "so much more", but really, aren't good AD's supposed to generate "maximum income" for the university athletic department while making sure the student-athlete is well-served, while making sure the fan is pleased?

I guess since Tonic so summarily dismissed your post, he thought we were all supposed to know the exact requirements of an AD in the exact order?  I wish he'd "englighten" all of us instead of acting like he knows.

What we know is that the best coaching hire of the last 30 years here was fired b/c they couldn't get along, the football program has sucked or at best been average since, the baseball program has made absolutely no change under Long, and the basketball program is graduating more players.

But we're turning a profit due to the extraordinary efforts on our AD's behalf negotiating a network TV deal that includes all 14 schools in the league, a league that pays equal revenue to all 14 schools and was negotiated by all 14 AD's.  And we're paying that TV revenue to underperforming coaches?  I'm all in favor of retaining underperforming coaches in the "short" term in order to take a chance on a long term great hire like Richardson, Van Horn, DeBriyn, Holtz, Broyles, etc. but does that automatically involve a raise during a season you sucked?  Doesn't make sense to me. 

Oh, and I'm a mouth breather according to Clark because I don't have a friend on staff on the basketball team.  Or had.



I'm sorry AP, I didn't realize that the Petrino firing was still crawled up your ass making you fart out nonsense like this.

I should have just followed Clark's advice, I know better now.

Don't waste your time with the mouth breathers.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: acater on June 22, 2016, 07:20:16 AM
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.

Wait, what? Who the fuck wants to watch an entire three hour sporting event on their phone? Game attendance isnt competing with fucking aps, its competing with my high def 60 inch Vizio and the ability to scroll through 4 or 5 games at the touch of a button, instantly, not the ability to stream a game on a five inch big hand held device that has to reload any time I want to change the program. Sports on tv isnt going anywhere.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: big_pig on June 22, 2016, 09:21:11 AM
I dont have cable anymore but I watch ESPN on my 110 inch projection screen via roku.

Not exactly a 5 inch phone.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tanny Bogus on June 22, 2016, 09:44:30 AM
ISP + SlingTV= win
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BASS on June 22, 2016, 09:49:31 AM
Wait, what? Who the fuck wants to watch an entire three hour sporting event on their phone? Game attendance isnt competing with fucking aps, its competing with my high def 60 inch Vizio and the ability to scroll through 4 or 5 games at the touch of a button, instantly, not the ability to stream a game on a five inch big hand held device that has to reload any time I want to change the program. Sports on tv isnt going anywhere.

sports will stay on tv.  but, i think tv will change at an industry level with much opposition from cable and satellite companies that will be rendered obsolete.  with smart tvs being able to connect to a wireless router, all tv watching will become internet streaming, whether in your living room, or anywhere with a wifi or cell phone reception on your mobile device.  and all of your channels will be apps you click on.  it could also lead to individual events having their own separate viewings, like the olympics, the master's, or super bowl.  why sell rights to a network if you can do it yourself and keep all the money instead of the network getting their cut?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: TheOtherWhiteMeat on June 22, 2016, 12:18:41 PM
sports will stay on tv.  but, i think tv will change at an industry level with much opposition from cable and satellite companies that will be rendered obsolete.  with smart tvs being able to connect to a wireless router, all tv watching will become internet streaming, whether in your living room, or anywhere with a wifi or cell phone reception on your mobile device.  and all of your channels will be apps you click on.  it could also lead to individual events having their own separate viewings, like the olympics, the master's, or super bowl.  why sell rights to a network if you can do it yourself and keep all the money instead of the network getting their cut?

I don't think that will happen for a while. There are a lot of people (like me) who live in areas where no type of wired cable internet is available. I'm on Verizon Homefusion with a 10 GB data plan that I share with my iPad.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on June 22, 2016, 12:39:52 PM
I don't think that will happen for a while. There are a lot of people (like me) who live in areas where no type of wired cable internet is available. I'm on Verizon Homefusion with a 10 GB data plan that I share with my iPad.


No AT&T or Fidelity available in Springwater?

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: TheOtherWhiteMeat on June 22, 2016, 04:10:09 PM

No AT&T or Fidelity available in Springwater?

Not last time I checked but it's been a few years. At first I actually had dial-up because I thought they would be getting DSL soon, gave up and got satellite. It sucked and a few years ago I got Verizon. The speed is fine but the data cap is the issue. Back in February it went out and I could either pay for them to come out and replace antenna, router, or both or sign a new 2 year contract and get it for free so I re-upped. When this contract is out I'll check back on AT&T/Fidelity.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: notaslibro on June 23, 2016, 12:11:57 PM
I don't think that will happen for a while. There are a lot of people (like me) who live in areas where no type of wired cable internet is available. I'm on Verizon Homefusion with a 10 GB data plan that I share with my iPad.

That's an odd arrangement.  I hope your iPad is paying his share when the bill comes due.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on September 08, 2016, 11:02:26 AM


So let it be written, so let it be done.

The UA Board of Trustees voted 6-2 this morning to approve the bond issue for the renovations to the north end zone of Razorback Stadium and to hire legal counsel and underwriters for the bonds.  The project is now officially underway.



Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: TexZilla on September 08, 2016, 11:15:57 AM

So let it be written, so let it be done.

The UA Board of Trustees voted 6-2 this morning to approve the bond issue for the renovations to the north end zone of Razorback Stadium and to hire legal counsel and underwriters for the bonds.  The project is now officially underway.

What else could they do with a gun pointed to their head?  Little Rock is just the tip of the ice berg.  The program was threatening the school that without the expansion they would move all home games to JerryWorld.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: papermill on September 08, 2016, 11:40:41 AM
What else could they do with a gun pointed to their head?  Little Rock is just the tip of the ice berg.  The program was threatening the school that without the expansion they would move all home games to JerryWorld.

works for me
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Swahili Steve on September 08, 2016, 02:23:25 PM

So let it be written, so let it be done.

The UA Board of Trustees voted 6-2 this morning to approve the bond issue for the renovations to the north end zone of Razorback Stadium and to hire legal counsel and underwriters for the bonds.  The project is now officially underway.
i guess this means the end of tailgating and parking in the put due to construction and expansion? How much more shit can they cram on one campus
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tanny Bogus on September 08, 2016, 03:16:50 PM
They just created a shitload of new parking/tailgating west of Razorback road north of the mosque.  It will help take up the slack during construction.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: TexZilla on September 08, 2016, 05:28:56 PM
works for me

It might happen.  DFW will likely soon have more UA grads than all of Arkansas.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HRC on September 08, 2016, 05:44:40 PM
i guess this means the end of tailgating and parking in the put due to construction and expansion? How much more shit can they cram on one campus

They have pretty much killed pit tailgating the last couple years, anyway. Only certain numbered spots are allowed space for tailgating in lot 44. They are trying to make the Gardens (now Victory Village South, I think) the main tailgating focus.

There is a lot of greenspace near the stadium but our school is too short sided to figure out how to setup tailgating. Ole Miss does it right. Let people drive up and unload their stuff and move on. We will never get it right.

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on September 09, 2016, 09:00:40 AM
It might happen.  DFW will likely soon have more UA grads than all of Arkansas.

The You of A would like you to know even though we are experiencing a massive influx of Metroplex kids and they outnumber actual Arkansas kids in the Freshman class, they had the largest ever class of Arkansas kids as well for 1016.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: IH8LSU on September 09, 2016, 09:36:46 AM
The You of A would like you to know even though we are experiencing a massive influx of Metroplex kids and they outnumber actual Arkansas kids in the Freshman class, they had the largest ever class of Arkansas kids as well for 1016.
They probably had shorter history classes too.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar on September 09, 2016, 09:40:28 AM
That's amazing considering there wasn't even an Arkansas to get kids from then.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on September 09, 2016, 09:43:58 AM
Fuck all y'all
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on September 09, 2016, 09:47:12 AM
(now Victory Village South, I think)


Is there a Victory Village North?

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Swahili Steve on September 09, 2016, 12:34:16 PM
They have pretty much killed pit tailgating the last couple years, anyway. Only certain numbered spots are allowed space for tailgating in lot 44. They are trying to make the Gardens (now Victory Village South, I think) the main tailgating focus.

There is a lot of greenspace near the stadium but our school is too short sided to figure out how to setup tailgating. Ole Miss does it right. Let people drive up and unload their stuff and move on. We will never get it right.
fuck victory village. I'll never tailgate there.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HRC on September 09, 2016, 12:43:19 PM

Is there a Victory Village North?

I know you're trying to be a smartass but read for yourself. I didn't make this shit up. GFY.

http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/victory-village/


Based on its popularity and in response to fan requests for more reserved tailgating spots, Victory Village was expanded before the 2015 University of Arkansas football season.

In addition to the previously available reserved tailgating spots in Victory Village North (located above Lot 44 by the John W. Tyson Poultry Science building) and Victory Village East (located across Stadium Drive from Lot 44 on the Administration Hill), a new location, Victory Village South, has been established south of Bud Walton Arena near the Gardens.  Victory Village South will be located on an open grass lot directly west of the new Basketball Performance Center.

Spots in Victory Village can be reserved on a single-game or season-long basis. Tailgating in Victory Village will only be permitted with a reservation.

For more information or to reserve a spot in Victory Village, contact Intents Party Rentals at 479-251-8368.
In addition, Razorback Athletics will continue to provide the popular AT&T Fan Zone at the Gardens for free. The AT&T Fan Zone at the Gardens includes inflatable games for kids, live music, televisions and food and drink vendors.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar on September 09, 2016, 01:06:15 PM
I'm holding out for The Village.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Splurge on September 09, 2016, 01:14:11 PM
Naming things after directions is sooooo yesterday and dated.  Take a page from the real estate developers like Lindsey and jazz it up with some bullshit "homage to history".  For example, instead of Victory Village South, it should named The Village at Carlson Terrace.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Swahili Steve on September 09, 2016, 01:25:04 PM
I'm holding out for The Village.
why not Hurt Village
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on September 09, 2016, 01:38:23 PM
I know you're trying to be a smartass but read for yourself. I didn't make this shit up. GFY.

http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/victory-village/


While I see that my reputation precedes me, your hostility is misplaced in this instance, good sir.

I did not know that there was a Victory Village for every compass point.  In fact, I wasn't aware there was something called "Victory Village" until today. 

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on September 09, 2016, 01:39:33 PM
I'm holding out for The Village.


(http://cammackvillage.org/media/Cammack-Sign-and-Car-e1437148062622-745x450.jpg)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: TheOtherWhiteMeat on September 09, 2016, 01:40:24 PM

While I see that my reputation precedes me, your hostility is misplaced in this instance, good sir.

I did not know that there was a Victory Village for every compass point.  In fact, I wasn't aware there was something called "Victory Village" until today.

(http://www.thecrosshairstrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/DunceCap2.jpg)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on September 09, 2016, 01:44:18 PM
Naming things after directions is sooooo yesterday and dated.  Take a page from the real estate developers like Lindsey and jazz it up with some bullshit "homage to history".  For example, instead of Victory Village South, it should named The Village at Carlson Terrace.


The Little Rock at Argenta?

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar on September 09, 2016, 01:50:19 PM

(http://cammackvillage.org/media/Cammack-Sign-and-Car-e1437148062622-745x450.jpg)
FUCK that god damn police department.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on September 09, 2016, 01:52:21 PM
FUCK that god damn police department.


I thought it was fitting that the only car in sight was a police car. 

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Stephen Colboar on September 09, 2016, 01:55:58 PM
Naming things after directions is sooooo yesterday and dated.  Take a page from the real estate developers like Lindsey and jazz it up with some bullshit "homage to history".  For example, instead of Victory Village South, it should named The Village at Carlson Terrace.

The Village at Latourette Tavern
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on September 09, 2016, 02:30:43 PM
The Village at Latourette Tavern

epic.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: TexZilla on September 09, 2016, 02:54:42 PM

(http://cammackvillage.org/media/Cammack-Sign-and-Car-e1437148062622-745x450.jpg)

When I was a kid in the 60's there was a public swimming pool in Cammack Village that was pretty nice.  As I recall the lifeguards were cops who would hassle you, but I think their real purpose was to make sure there was no integrating going on.  I think after they gave my mother her third ticket she started driving us out to Lake Nixon.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: kingofdequeen on September 09, 2016, 02:55:24 PM

(http://cammackvillage.org/media/Cammack-Sign-and-Car-e1437148062622-745x450.jpg)

I love that police department.  don't even lock my doors.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Splurge on September 09, 2016, 03:25:14 PM
When I was a kid in the 60's there was a public swimming pool in Cammack Village that was pretty nice.  As I recall the lifeguards were cops who would hassle you, but I think their real purpose was to make sure there was no integrating going on.  I think after they gave my mother her third ticket she started driving us out to Lake Nixon.

Never knew you were a black dude.  Could certainly never tell from your posts and none of my black friends eat jello molds with veg-all.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: IH8LSU on September 09, 2016, 03:44:17 PM

(http://cammackvillage.org/media/Cammack-Sign-and-Car-e1437148062622-745x450.jpg)
If only that village were surrounded by scary animals, that might be a good plot for a movie...
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Law_Hawg on September 09, 2016, 03:46:33 PM
When I was a kid in the 60's there was a public swimming pool in Cammack Village that was pretty nice.  As I recall the lifeguards were cops who would hassle you, but I think their real purpose was to make sure there was no integrating going on.  I think after they gave my mother her third ticket she started driving us out to Lake Nixon.


They do have a sense of humor about their reputation, at least. 

(http://www.arkansasoutside.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/cammack-e1469479215340.png)
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Show-Me Hog on September 09, 2016, 03:55:17 PM
I know you're trying to be a smartass but read for yourself. I didn't make this shit up. GFY.

http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/victory-village/


Based on its popularity and in response to fan requests for more reserved tailgating spots, Victory Village was expanded before the 2015 University of Arkansas football season.

In addition to the previously available reserved tailgating spots in Victory Village North (located above Lot 44 by the John W. Tyson Poultry Science building) and Victory Village East (located across Stadium Drive from Lot 44 on the Administration Hill), a new location, Victory Village South, has been established south of Bud Walton Arena near the Gardens.  Victory Village South will be located on an open grass lot directly west of the new Basketball Performance Center.

Spots in Victory Village can be reserved on a single-game or season-long basis. Tailgating in Victory Village will only be permitted with a reservation.

For more information or to reserve a spot in Victory Village, contact Intents Party Rentals at 479-251-8368.
In addition, Razorback Athletics will continue to provide the popular AT&T Fan Zone at the Gardens for free. The AT&T Fan Zone at the Gardens includes inflatable games for kids, live music, televisions and food and drink vendors.


If you rent a spot on a day we lose, do you get a refund?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HRC on September 09, 2016, 07:14:44 PM

While I see that my reputation precedes me, your hostility is misplaced in this instance, good sir.

I did not know that there was a Victory Village for every compass point.  In fact, I wasn't aware there was something called "Victory Village" until today.

My bad. I thought you were giving me shit. It's hard to tell when people are actually serious around here.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on October 18, 2016, 09:03:12 PM
a letter went out this afternoon about the expansion.  has a link with updated information/renderings

http://arkansasrazorbacks.com/dwrrs/?hq_e=el&hq_m=1198560&hq_l=1&hq_v=5df2861ec3

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hit_that_line on October 18, 2016, 09:11:25 PM
I guess no more erector set seats. They need to bowl it in completely. Looks odd as hell and reduces noise.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Aporkalypse_Now on October 18, 2016, 10:51:37 PM
Looks awesome, but do the tower renovations on the west side corners mean they are putting a facade there?  I'm guessing since you can't see it that it will still be the same erector set on that side but 100% awesome everywhere else?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Joe Swine on October 18, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
When the Vols were taking it up all three and filing out last Saturday, I noticed their stands were all the piss, shit and aluminium of ours.  They're stuck with all 102K of that.  We're not.   We better think this through.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hit_that_line on October 19, 2016, 07:43:50 AM
When the Vols were taking it up all three and filing out last Saturday, I noticed their stands were all the piss, shit and aluminium of ours.  They're stuck with all 102K of that.  We're not.   We better think this through.
Wouldn't surprise me if in the future we actually reduce seating to increase comfort. This is what TCU did putting in tons of chair backs and giving more room. It was awesome.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: hit_that_line on October 19, 2016, 07:44:33 AM
Looks awesome, but do the tower renovations on the west side corners mean they are putting a facade there?  I'm guessing since you can't see it that it will still be the same erector set on that side but 100% awesome everywhere else?
I thought Long said that wasn't happening this round.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogofWar on October 19, 2016, 08:18:02 AM
I guess no more erector set seats. They need to bowl it in completely. Looks odd as hell and reduces noise.
Everybody will think we ran out if money.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BASS on October 19, 2016, 09:37:37 AM
Wouldn't surprise me if in the future we actually reduce seating to increase comfort. This is what TCU did putting in tons of chair backs and giving more room. It was awesome.

would be cool if they could cascade down the west side of the stadium over razorback road and have a tunnel through the stadium for the road and traffic. 

i'm sure that would only cost another $100mm or so
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Rick B. on October 19, 2016, 09:47:05 AM
I guess no more erector set seats. They need to bowl it in completely. Looks odd as hell and reduces noise.

I hope they leave that north east corner open for eternity.  Makes the stadium unique.

BUT, what all you fuckers are totally missing is that they will start razing the current Broyles Athletic Complex. 

THAT MEANS THAT AFTER THE LSU GAME, WE WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO GRIPE ABOUT THE YELLOW BRICKS!!!

I'm gonna get in touch with some of the people I know at the U of A and see if we can get a few of those bricks to save as a Woopig souvenir.  We'll have it to rotate around to our individual tailgates so that we will NEVER forget.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HRC on October 19, 2016, 09:47:34 AM
would be cool if they could cascade down the west side of the stadium over razorback road and have a tunnel through the stadium for the road and traffic. 

i'm sure that would only cost another $100mm or so

I wish they would do this but in things I've read in the past a big barrier is that Razorback Rd is a state highway, so doing something like this requires getting the state involved and you know that isn't easy. Lot 72 would be a great spot for a hotel.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DirkPiggler on October 19, 2016, 09:50:40 AM
I hope they leave that north east corner open for eternity.  Makes the stadium unique.

BUT, what all you fuckers are totally missing is that they will start razing the current Broyles Athletic Complex. 

THAT MEANS THAT AFTER THE LSU GAME, WE WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO GRIPE ABOUT THE YELLOW BRICKS!!!

I'm gonna get in touch with some of the people I know at the U of A and see if we can get a few of those bricks to save as a Woopig souvenir.  We'll have it to rotate around to our individual tailgates so that we will NEVER forget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ3Bb4UsXhU
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Rick B. on October 19, 2016, 09:52:27 AM
I wish they would do this but in things I've read in the past a big barrier is that Razorback Rd is a state highway, so doing something like this requires getting the state involved and you know that isn't easy. Lot 72 would be a great spot for a hotel.

BTW, leave room up near the street in your front yard for a statue honoring the BAC yellow bricks.  When woopiggers head to the game (the non-losers who actually buy tickets and attend), they can walk by and touch the BAC Yellow Bricks Woopig Statue.  We'll put a picture of Leo on one side.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HRC on October 19, 2016, 09:56:26 AM
BTW, leave room up near the street in your front yard for a statue honoring the BAC yellow bricks.  When woopiggers head to the game (the non-losers who actually buy tickets and attend), they can walk by and touch the BAC Yellow Bricks Woopig Statue.  We'll put a picture of Leo on one side.

I like it. Maybe we can get some of the actual bricks from the demolition. A pic of Leo and the reigning Ms Woopig and our fat coach.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DirkPiggler on October 19, 2016, 09:57:39 AM
I like it. Maybe we can get some of the actual bricks from the demolition. A pic of Leo and the reigning Ms Woopig and our fat coach.

If you guys really want to honor the spirit of Woopig you'll use the bricks to build a small shelter for Leo in your front yard. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BASS on October 19, 2016, 10:10:53 AM
If you guys really want to honor the spirit of Woopig you'll use the bricks to build a small shelter for Leo in your front yard.

can we make it a jail that FPD drop Leo off at when he gets popped for PI?  We can give him his own key like Floyd.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Cerdo on October 19, 2016, 10:25:08 AM
If you guys really want to honor the spirit of Woopig you'll use the bricks to build a small shelter for Leo in your front yard.
That would be big time. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: GolfingHog on October 19, 2016, 10:31:09 AM
I wish they would do this but in things I've read in the past a big barrier is that Razorback Rd is a state highway, so doing something like this requires getting the state involved and you know that isn't easy. Lot 72 would be a great spot for a hotel.

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2016/oct/12/fayetteville-transportation-committee-m/

The Transportation Committee on Tuesday reviewed a proposal in which the city would own and maintain about 4 miles of Arkansas 112 from 15th Street to Interstate 49. In exchange, the state would widen or improve four sections of the highway at little to no cost to the city.

The city also would take responsibility for about 3 miles of Arkansas 156 from South School Avenue to Pump Station Road, north of Drake Field. The highways would become a city streets and the state would remove both segments from its system.


 :borat:
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: IH8LSU on October 19, 2016, 10:32:52 AM
can we make it a jail that FPD drop Leo off at when he gets popped for PI?  We can give him his own key like Floyd.
Otis.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: BASS on October 19, 2016, 04:27:45 PM
Otis.

well fuck me.  i never watched that show.  floyd was the barber wasn't he?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Austin Nichols on October 19, 2016, 04:34:51 PM
a letter went out this afternoon about the expansion.  has a link with updated information/renderings

http://arkansasrazorbacks.com/dwrrs/?hq_e=el&hq_m=1198560&hq_l=1&hq_v=5df2861ec3

Endzone font still not updated.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: chittlins on October 19, 2016, 04:58:03 PM
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2016/oct/12/fayetteville-transportation-committee-m/

The Transportation Committee on Tuesday reviewed a proposal in which the city would own and maintain about 4 miles of Arkansas 112 from 15th Street to Interstate 49. In exchange, the state would widen or improve four sections of the highway at little to no cost to the city.


:borat:


Improve means getting rid of the center turn lane and adding tree lined medians so it will look like the section from Baum to 6th (MLK). So, when you get off the exit it will be Boulevard all the way. I give this a great  :thumbup:

The state gets rid of maintaining it at a small cost considereding the cost of decades more of upkeep.

This state has WAAAAAAY too much state highway miles that when added up takes a great deal of funding away from important roads.

Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HogHead McCormick on October 19, 2016, 05:06:38 PM
I hope they leave that north east corner open for eternity.  Makes the stadium unique.

BUT, what all you fuckers are totally missing is that they will start razing the current Broyles Athletic Complex. 

THAT MEANS THAT AFTER THE LSU GAME, WE WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO GRIPE ABOUT THE YELLOW BRICKS!!!

I'm gonna get in touch with some of the people I know at the U of A and see if we can get a few of those bricks to save as a Woopig souvenir.  We'll have it to rotate around to our individual tailgates so that we will NEVER forget.


That view from maple? towards the southwest through the opening  is worth the odd look of the stadium itself.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: IH8LSU on October 19, 2016, 09:51:37 PM
well fuck me.  i never watched that show.  floyd was the barber wasn't he?
Yes. And Otis was the town woopigger.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Tanny Bogus on October 20, 2016, 07:57:45 AM

Improve means getting rid of the center turn lane and adding tree lined medians so it will look like the section from Baum to 6th (MLK). So, when you get off the exit it will be Boulevard all the way. I give this a great  :thumbup:

The state gets rid of maintaining it at a small cost considereding the cost of decades more of upkeep.

This state has WAAAAAAY too much state highway miles that when added up takes a great deal of funding away from important roads.
More importantly the University doesn't have to deal with the highway dept when trying to do things on campus. 
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Count Porkula on October 20, 2016, 08:22:16 AM
More importantly the University doesn't have to deal with the highway dept when trying to do things on campus.

yes, but dealing with this city can be an even bigger pain in the ass
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Sus-Scrofa on October 20, 2016, 08:28:35 AM


THAT MEANS THAT AFTER THE LSU GAME, WE WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO GRIPE ABOUT THE YELLOW BRICKS!!!


AS long as you don't walk through the middle of campus.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: razorwire on October 20, 2016, 08:42:38 AM
I remember when they installed the brick plaza between the library and the student union.  Physical plant set up a masonry saw and sliced all of the brick pavers in half (length wise) to save money.  However, the half width thickness of the pavers did not hold up well to freeze thaw and a good number had to be replaced each spring with new pavers for as long as I remained at the University.  Don't underestimate the physical plant's management ability to come up with an adaptive re-use of the yellow bricks.  Perhaps a brick inlay spelling out "Frank Broyles" in a sidewalk associated with the athletic dorm.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: DrMongoose on October 09, 2017, 01:10:38 PM
So maybe Pryor had a valid point after all?
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Phat_Hawg on November 09, 2017, 12:21:01 AM
So maybe Pryor had a valid point after all?

Some entertaining reading in this thread.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: arkansawyer on November 10, 2017, 02:30:20 PM
This was discussed in the other thread, but here's some more detail on the bond payments (you have to register, but it's free):

https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/u-of-arkansas-plays-stadium-game-with-bond-deal

Basically, we are paying back nearly 50% of the $115 MM bond over the next 10 years with the rest spread out beyond that. That's $57.5 MM in just principal payments over the next ten years. Adding in interest and at minimum you're looking at $8 MM in increased yearly debt obligations starting in 2018.

I'd love to see their math, my guesses on what they projected:

1) Sell every suite for $1 MM for 6 years which seems to be the going rate, that's $6.3 MM / year.
2) Sell 64 loge boxes at an average of $20,000 / year is another $1.3 MM.
3) Sell 3,000 club seats x $125 / ticket is $2.6 MM
4) Assume minimal to no-issues selling suits and seats that opened up from people moving into new endzone

That totals about $10 MM increase in yearly revenue, which in theory would more than cover the $8 MM in yearly bond payments. It all comes down to how well the club seats are selling as well as how well they are back-filling the people that moved to the new end zone from the rest of the stadium. It sounds as if they are having a hell of a time backfilling, based on anecdotes.



Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Razor B on November 10, 2017, 02:50:34 PM
The Coastal Carolina game changed the minds of people willing to upgrade.  The UA admin put all their biscuits in Bret's basket.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: big_pig on November 10, 2017, 02:57:12 PM
Maybe I'm naive but here's what I think:

If we had done this expansion in 2009 and opened it with the 2010 season does anyone think we wouldn't have had sellouts in 10 and 11?

The problem filling the stadium is tied to the coach. Hire the right coach and I'm not worried about the expansion.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Aporkalypse_Now on November 10, 2017, 02:58:48 PM
Maybe I'm naive but here's what I think:

If we had done this expansion in 2009 and opened it with the 2010 season does anyone think we wouldn't have had sellouts in 10 and 11?

The problem filling the stadium is tied to the coach. Hire the right coach and I'm not worried about the expansion.

I said basically the same thing here earlier somewhere but absolutely.  We rocked sellouts regularly when we were good.

We had 74K here for TCU this year and they brought nobody.  We will sell this out when we have a good team without any issues.  Or just with the excitement of a new coach people want.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HRC on November 10, 2017, 03:35:59 PM
This was discussed in the other thread, but here's some more detail on the bond payments (you have to register, but it's free):

https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/u-of-arkansas-plays-stadium-game-with-bond-deal

Basically, we are paying back nearly 50% of the $115 MM bond over the next 10 years with the rest spread out beyond that. That's $57.5 MM in just principal payments over the next ten years. Adding in interest and at minimum you're looking at $8 MM in increased yearly debt obligations starting in 2018.

I'd love to see their math, my guesses on what they projected:

1) Sell every suite for $1 MM for 6 years which seems to be the going rate, that's $6.3 MM / year.
2) Sell 64 loge boxes at an average of $20,000 / year is another $1.3 MM.
3) Sell 3,000 club seats x $125 / ticket is $2.6 MM
4) Assume minimal to no-issues selling suits and seats that opened up from people moving into new endzone

That totals about $10 MM increase in yearly revenue, which in theory would more than cover the $8 MM in yearly bond payments. It all comes down to how well the club seats are selling as well as how well they are back-filling the people that moved to the new end zone from the rest of the stadium. It sounds as if they are having a hell of a time backfilling, based on anecdotes.

The club seats are $225 outside the goalposts and $250 right behind. The loge boxes are $16,000 for 4-seats. I don’t remember if there are larger ones. These are inclusive of donations.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: acater on November 10, 2017, 03:43:16 PM
The loge boxes are $16,000 for 4-seats. I don’t remember if there are larger ones. These are inclusive of donations.

And food! Unlimited NACHOS!
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: HRC on November 10, 2017, 04:01:16 PM
And food! Unlimited NACHOS!

And Pepsi.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: TheOtherWhiteMeat on November 10, 2017, 04:08:09 PM
The loge boxes are $16,000 for 4-seats. I don’t remember if there are larger ones.

There are field level loge boxes and second level loge boxes. The field level come in 4 or 8 seat configurations. Not sure about the second level.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: arkansawyer on November 10, 2017, 04:10:26 PM
I said basically the same thing here earlier somewhere but absolutely.  We rocked sellouts regularly when we were good.

We had 74K here for TCU this year and they brought nobody.  We will sell this out when we have a good team without any issues.  Or just with the excitement of a new coach people want.

I agree as well, but I do think the fresh financial obligations are interesting in light of (maybe) 40k in seats on homecoming.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Arkansas Proud on November 10, 2017, 04:19:59 PM
I agree as well, but I do think the fresh financial obligations are interesting in light of (maybe) 40k in seats on homecoming.

The amount of people actually in their seats matters, mainly because it points to future revenue.  Nobody should care if 65K tickets were sold this year.  What they want to know is who is coming to the games now, which points to future revenue.

Several people were giving away tickets out front of the stadium, and most likely will be the next two games.  That should tell someone that not EVERYONE will renew.
Title: Re: Former UA Trustees against stadium expansion
Post by: Boondoggle on November 10, 2017, 07:04:33 PM
The amount of people actually in their seats matters, mainly because it points to future revenue.  Nobody should care if 65K tickets were sold this year.  What they want to know is who is coming to the games now, which points to future revenue.

Several people were giving away tickets out front of the stadium, and most likely will be the next two games.  That should tell someone that not EVERYONE will renew.


Those people giving away tickets would be better served if they shredded their tickets and mailed them to Steinmetz and the BOT.  That would send the right message to the powers that be.

I'm going to buy a bunch of $2 and $3 tickets to the MSU game and send them back to the You of A in that fashion. Would be the first money I've given them in years, but will be well-spent and satisfying to see ground up in the shredder like confetti.