In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1976
Online now 108 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Yup, forget the doubletalk and spin some will nitpic over every word of the interview. Bottom line, Barnhart fired the shot that it was the Ky Senate and Williams holding back Commonwealth improvements. Williams has returned volley saying if Barnhart (who he claims has never spoken too him before) presents a plan of what will be done and how the debt will be paid for, he will suppor it.
Ball is in your court now, Mitch
We have to hold Mitch's feet to the fire and make him fight for the football program. REGARDLESS OF THE COACH. If we have a new coach, he needs better infrastructure.
If Joker's coach, he needs to sell renovation plans to recruits.
Sounds like a GREAT opportunity for a CatsPause follow up interview with Mitch! Might as well beat Jones to the punch...
Everything Williams said was BS!
UK has already went in with a plan and how the debt would be paid for and he wouldn't support it. What Williams didn't say was he's talked with people from UK about the plan for the CWS renovations and he didn't support it. Was Mitch there? No, but Williams has spoken with people from UK about this issue.
I'll donate 1,000 dollars to the K-fund if and when MB takes a plan to Williams and he gets on board with support of it. Not gonna happen my friend. Mitch could take one to Frankfort every Friday and the result will be the same.
I have held back over and over in regards to people's knowledge on this issue. What Williams proposed today is not what uofl had to do with their stadium, it's not what uofl did with their other improvements. What Williams is saying is something that isn't doable. There is no legal way for uk to bond a project and not have the taxpayers liable if
Uk doesn't generate the revenue. Williams knows this. To the average person listening it sounded like Williams was open to this. What he proposed isn't legal.
Of course uk is going to present a plan in which it pays for itself. But there is no way to take the taxpayers off the hook.
My understanding is not taking taxpayers off the hook, but showing reliable revenue to pay for it. Under this structure taxpayers will never be off the hook.
Mitch has to publically show the proposal, state he sent it to Williams, and ask why it wasn't or won't be approved.
That's the only to way to get to the truth. Not all this back door dealmaking and wrangling.
I don't understand your last quote "back door dealmaking and wrangling". If you are referring to UK, it is my understanding from Mitch's interview and other assertions on here that UK went through proper channels and submitted their request to have the bond issue approved, complete with Revenue assumptions. If you are referring to the State Gov., good luck on the whole, no back door dealmaking thing. Unfortunately, that's how things now seem to work at any level of government. Sadly...
Well, which part of of the interview was correct? Williams hasn't seen a plan, or he has seen a plan and it was to use athletics revenue and private funds to service the debt?
He's either seen the plan or he hasn't. UK has either presented on, or it hasn't. Your premise (more strongly worded on another site) is that Mitch has failed because he hasn't presented a plan to Williams. Williams, in the interview, said that the plan he saw was to use athletics revenue and private funds to service the debt. Which indicates that a plan was presented to Williams himself.
My takeaway from this interview is that a plan was in fact presented, with debt to be serviced by athletics revenue and private funds. The plan was not approved and Williams said (in this interview) that he prefers to see dollars used for faculty raises and dormitory improvements.
First off, athletics revenue (~100 million) should not be the lynchpin for faculty salaries when your budget is approximately $2 Billion per year. Secondly, dormitory improvements (if I understand correctly) are being done by a private company, to be administered by that private company, with ownership reverting to UK after 'x' number of years.
Nothing that Williams said in that interview was a legitimate reason why UK athletics revenue should not be used to service debt incurred for UK athletics improvements. The only argument advanced by Williams concerning UK athletics' ability to issue its own bonds, separate and apart from the general bonding cap, was that some rogue administrator might run up a tab that the taxpayers would foot the bill for.
Scaremongering and doublespeak from Williams. For all that you've said forget the doubletalk, you've taken Williams' doublespeak as true and used it to fire another salvo at Barnhart.
I think the answer to your question is that we're not sure what he's seen or how detailed; or if Mitch has presented such.
He said if UK Athletics can self support any proposal he will support it "if they can pay for it". Which to me they obviously can.
If fans want better facilities they can't let this die. Williams has said he'll support it and Mitch has said the money is there. This needs to get done.
So can someone clarify a few things for me?
Am I correct in understanding that the UK pres. and BOT wants athletic revenues to go more towards funding academic projects rather than athletic projects? Is this essentially saying, the monthly income from athletics could not be used to support a monthly or annual repayment of bonding?
Did the BOT allows a bonding request to make it to the legislature?
Is what's being discussed more of a CWS renovation, and does that include player facilities such as locker rooms, weight rooms and recruiting rooms?
Agreed, but the question then becomes how to do it? I mean, a plan was presented to the Legislature (per Williams) that serviced the debt without using anything other than athletics revenue and private donations.
You are correct in saying that you and I do not how detailed it was, and ultimately it doesn't matter if Barnhart, Capiluto, or Boris Karloff presented the plan. A plan was presented with debt service coming from sources other than the general fund. The debt service (again, per Williams) was to come from athletics revenue and private donations.
Williams says he will support any proposal UK can pay for; so why didn't our last proposal get approved? There wasn't a single word about lack of (or assurances of) ability to pay concerning the latest rejection, it was rejected so as not to push total debt burden past 7%.
So where do we go from here? Did UK put together a comprehensive debt service plan that accompanied the request? I don't know, but I can't imagine Eli sent a post-it note to the Governor with "$100 mil plz" written in pencil. If a debt service plan was presented, what, specifically, could it contain (or not contain) that would have allowed the Legislature to ignore the 7% debt burden figure? Did the debt service plan contain projected revenue from suites and ticket sales (which Barnhart indicated would be used to service the debt) or did it literally contain the words "athletics revenue and private donations?"
Some enterprising journalist could surely file a ORR/FOIA request to get us a copy of the actual document, which would allow me to jump in a Williams/Barnhart camp on who is telling tales out of school.
From what I understood of the interview Williams commented on the request for the $75 million for Commonwealth in this past Legislative session that the Ky House ultimately Ex'ed out. And he said that "plan" (which didnt even get approved in the Dem-run House to make it to the Senate) was very open-ended and not specific or defined enough.
But y'know what JD? Mitch could prove you are correct and that Williams is not today, this afternoon, right now. He could have called a press conference, and said "David Williams stated in a radio interview he would support a plan to expand/improve Commonwealth if it were detailed and specific. Well, here you go. We welcome Senator William's support as we have provided him what he needs" And thump the plan on a table for the media to then report to the people.
I wish that is what would occur, hope the opposite isnt what happens - silence, in hopes this story goes away
This is something that we can agree on. I think if, as Barnhart stated, the problem ultimately lies in Frankfort, that Barnhart has a golden opportunity in the coming days to capitalize on Williams' retort.
Now, will that capitalization actually result in movement? I doubt it, since the debt ratio (and not lack of debt service planning) was the only thing cited in the denial of bonding requests. However, I could be wrong, and at the very least this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate publicly where the root of athletic (read: football) funding problems lie.
The way I understood it, part of the reason it was rejected is it did not specify how the money would be divided up and used. By asking for a large amount of money without specifying how much would be used for football, how much for education etc, UK has not demonstrated in detail how the debt will be repayed. It's kind of like throwing "earmarks" into laws. Lawmakers use this method to get htings done that would otherwise never be accomplished. It sounds to me like UK is possibly trying to accomplish goals that it knows would likely not be accepted if they made the details known.
Whatever the case, I agree the ball is in Mitch's court. He needs to come forward publicly with a buisness plan that asks for football money, and demonstrates specifically how it will increase revenue and pay for itself. Once again, it looks to me like Mitch and UK have not been doing all they can to improve football. This is why many of us complain. No, we can't possibly know the inner-political dealings that are going on behind closedc doors, but that doesn't mean we can't smell a rotten egg.
It looks like the people of this state want this to happen. It can be afforded and should move forward without being stalemated by political stalling.
Williams admitted in an offhand way that the conservative stand is that bonding will not be risked on a football stadium portion of bonding as that portion will cost over 100 million dollars, and that there has been no presentation from the UK reps that this will be assured to be a secure long term investment.
Williams kept saying that those in position to make the deal now on UK's side are only temporarily in position to make this commitment, but when they are all gone it's the people of Kentucky that will be stuck with the bill.
He pointed to how Louisville businesses are left holding the ball over the Yum Center deal now.
I think that one of the points made that has kept this from buiding momentum is back when Dr. Capiluto stated that the big priority at UK was renovation of dorms and academic facilities, that was also mentioned by Williams. This is a point that carries significant weight in all of this. The state gets a pair of teathered hands rather than a pair of balls to move forward with this. However, muck of the added funds that were requested applied to thos academic facilities as well. No one has been left out as far as the record shows.
Read my post again.
read daily mine field's post again.
He's not saying the taxpayers aren't ultimately responsible. He's saying UK needs to demonstrate in a convincing and detail ed manner how the upgrades will pay for tmeselves. UK could do that with luxury boxes no problem.
And Club Level.
And new revenue from the enhanced SEC TV contracts due to Texas A&M and Missouri
I listened to Williams interview. A. He changed his story twice in the Interview. B. the one thing he made clear was that he wanted a guarantee that it would be paid for by revenues generated by the project and not on taxpayers backs. He also said he wanted to see the proposal Seperate from the rest of uk's requests. The second two requests are completely different than anything ever seen in the legislature.
It's as if Williams can support this and it's a done deal. There are 37 other senators that have a say in this, after it passes the House. What Williams says only gives you one vote either way.
To hell with trying to figure this mess out... I'm just gonna wait for Bill Lamb's point of view.
When Williams sees that ticket renewals are not going very well, that ought to be enough to kill the funding.
The fact that Barnhart and Williams have never talked is the tragedy of the entire interview.
With a situation like Barnhart described that the Ky Senate was holding back CWS improvements, I find it amazing that under that situation these two have never spoken.
Maybe Barnhart thinks he is above the political games they play in Kentucky but thats a poor excuse but understandable from someone not from Kentucky. The Kentucky funding situation is unique and requires thinking out of the box.
The meanest dog in Taiwan.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports