The House of Blue

That was actually the exact example he gave, noting that it appears that the taxpayers of the City of Louisville will end up picking up that tab.

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

Sounds like a GREAT opportunity for a CatsPause follow up interview with Mitch! Might as well beat Jones to the punch...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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 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 new revenue from the enhanced SEC TV contracts due to Texas A&M and Missouri

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.

When Williams sees that ticket renewals are not going very well, that ought to be enough to kill the funding.