Can someone confirm or deny that the stadium expansion is over budget and that was one reason why Long was fired?
Someone brought that up as a reason. Matt mentioned that the report to the BOT in October showed it as on budget, so that sounds like speculation
I would think most if not all large projects run over budget. Have any of you built a home or office?
I suspect if it were over budget by more than a very few dollars, we’d have known it by now. I don’t mean we’d have heard it, I mean it’d be all over the TV, radio, & newspapers. If it were discussed at the BOT, it’d be public information. I’m not worried about that. Not saying that can’t change, but I’m confident it’s not over budget now.
It is a construction contract, bonded by a surety company to be completed for the amount of the contract. It is a joint venture, between CDI and another contractor. Subcontractors bond their contract back to the JV or school. The only way the job is more than the public or could have been a close bid, is if there are several change orders, those have to be approved.
Bottom line, the school, Athletic department gets the building for the bid price, regardless what it cost the contractor to complete the project. The bond guarantees the completion of the job for the contract price, not withstanding change orders.
I do not see this as in issue.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, Jhall. Hope that quashes any overrun rumors.
Lots of change orders, lots of overtime…not to mention the purchase of new glass for the south end that all came crashing down when they put the score board up
If the Stadium expansion over budget was an issue for Jeff Long
being fired then he would have been fired for “CAUSE”. Thats about
as big of a cause as you would need to not have to pay the rest of his
He was let go for “CONVENIENCE” which is a whole different ball of wax.
Does anyone think for an instant if the University had a way to save the
5 million they are going to have to pay Jeff, that they would not have
gone that route?
None of which happened. They’re nowhere near putting any glass up. Some people just making up stuff to fit their agenda.
All I know about the south end zone and glass was the process of changing out the suites glass doors to make them like the sliding glass in Baum Stadium. That’s what all the scaffolding was in place for during the summer. This was being done while and before the new scoreboard went up on that end. Where did this story come out about replacing damaged glass? That’s news to me, the fact they replaced glass that I know of was part of the remodeling plan. The web cam pretty much can give an hour by hour documentation of everything done so far, they have every 15 minutes of every day of the project in archived photos.
There is or was one pane of glass in the SEZ club that had a large smudge that blocks the view of several seats. I’m calling it a smudge because that’s what it looks like. However, it’s some sort of scouring on the glass. It’s been there since the SEZ was built in 2000. I hope they’ve replaced that.
No change orders, and all the OT was built into the subs bids on the project. The GMP was for $132m, which is inline with the budget. Matt said there was an extra $18m built into the $160m price tag, I had always heard there was $20m.
Overtime would be on the contractor normally. They bid the project for a fixed price with a fixed time. (Why I hate “cost plus “ contracts, then the overtime is on the owner). If the contractor damaged the glass, that is on him.
Change orders? Yes, that is on the school.
The “over-budget stadium project” rumor is a red herring, used to justify what will turn out to be an impetuous and poorly executed dismissal of Jeff Long. He was fired because too many influential people just didn’t like him and the Bret Bielema experiment was a failure. No other reasoning you hear played a significant role.
The stadium expansion has been used against Long ever since it was proposed, mostly by a group of influential people who dislike him. First, the expansion was criticized as an excuse to build Taj Mahal offices and private parking for the AD and staff. Then it was the luxury seats were too expensive and would never sell. Then it was all too expensive for the small number of seats added. Then it was the money should be spent on academics, not athletics. Then it was the “risky” bonds guaranteed by athletic department revenue. Now it’s the whole thing is over budget. None of that turned out to be accurate or fair. But people who don’t like Long used it to confirm their already held beliefs about him.
I do think it was time for Long to go. He had indeed lost support of a good number of influential people. Also, football has been a huge disappointment, and the buck stops with the AD. But the way it has happened, to me, looks like the boosters are running the department. The timing, the messy board meeting, the rumors, all smack of back-room dealing and the lack of a plan. And that’s not a recipe for long-term success.
Going over budget is not a “for cause” violation that I’m aware of unless that was in his employment contract. Are you claiming there was fraud, or he some how acted outside the scope of his employment? Or are you confused on the legal definition of “for cause”?