Did anyone hear Irwin today?

On Bo’s show. I didn’t not hear it all but he said something like we might not be able to float a bond issue or make debt service payments on the stadium expansion because suites were not sold plus it was way over budget trying to get it ready for 2018 season. He also hinted at other financial difficulties the athletic dept was having. Anyone hear that and can fill in what exactly he said. He seems to know the most on the situation and has been correct on things to date. Wish he was a moderator on this board, he brings lots of info.

According to the university, they have commitments for all the suites and all but a few of the loge boxes, so someone is providing misinformation on that front.

As far as the cost, the university built $18 million in overruns into the projection to build the stadium. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a large building project that didn’t go at least a little over-budget, but it would have to be significant to exceed the built-in overrun.

I think he essentially laid out the true reason Long was fired.

The stadium expansion is supposedly costing around 200M not 160.

There’s been a decline in revenue and attendance, (go hand in hand) on top of the stadiums concession problemsto add to it.

Seems like it was a big nail in Longs coffin, what ultimately got him fired.

I don’t think it’s that big of a problem now, but if Bret returned and had a season that wasn’t spectacular it would become a very big problem.

The bond required like 80% suit commitments I believe, I think Long covered that. But idk if it was for the projected cost or the actual cost.

Someone probably knows more than what I heard off the radio though, I would also like to hear more.

Thx. I would like to hear more also. Irwin seemed to indicate there was much more to this than we are told but of course he couldn’t say most of it.

According to the last update the board of trustees received on the stadium cost in October, the project was on budget.

If the stadium reno becomes an issue of cost and overruns, the BoT should all be fired as well. They’re ultimately the ones that signed off on it.

I think all the side talk is simply an attempt by some to mask the single reason Long was let go. Certain people of influence didn’t like him. I’m not saying Irwin wanted him gone, but the talk he’s hearing out there is being purposely put out there.

Wrong, wrong, wrong…there is no tie to any amount of suite sales in the bond issue. The issues is paid by the revenues of the athletic department, which the general bond issue that this was incorporated into already had for our previous debt. How about you read a little, and may be Irwin should have before he went off on a tangent.

http://media.arkansasonline.com/news/do … cument.pdf

And not belittling you, because you see it in every board, our concessions revenue is around $1m. People like to act like we lose that much money at every game the crowd is smaller than 65,000, but that $1m is for the entire athletic department, every game/event for a season. It’s also in that pdf, under the Fayetteville’s campus athletic budget.

Look did anyone bother to consider that “IF” there was some large
money concern with the project being massively over-budget then
Jeff would have been fired for “cause” and they would not be having
to pay him the rest of his contract. He is being fired for convenience
not cause. You can bet, if they thought they had cause, then they
would use that to keep from paying him 1.1M per year for the rest of
his contract.

I think the money on the project is a bit of mis-information to help
ease a bit of the PR for firing a nationally recognized AD.

This. As I recall the proposal was presented to the BOTand they voted to support it (except for Senator Pryor). If there are unanticipated cost overruns, which seems doubtful, with regular reports being given to the board, the BOT has to own at least some responsibility. If not, the people of Arkansas are inadequately represented by the Board.

In addition to David Pryor, C.C. Gibson also voted against the project. John Goodson made the infamous comment that a vote against the project would be a vote against the AD and chancellor.

And didn’t he then move at a later meeting that all “big” contracts come up before the board before completing, the ones for the “help”, that is???