Anger in Montlake
Washington Athletic Director Scott Woodward is now faced with coming up with a so called "Plan B" for dealing with the renovation of Husky Stadium. In a normal year SB 6116 probably would have made it through the Senate and the House but this wasn't a normal year.
First of all the state, country, and world are in the worst recession since World War II. Legislators weren't keen on the picture it would paint by funding sports stadiums in an economy such as this.
Second of all an organized campaign led by one of the trustee's of cross state rival Washington State University was the actual nail in the coffin. Woodward isn't saying that but why would he give those bozo's credit?
Even though this was a difficult measure to pass Senator Ed Murray had the votes he needed to get it through the Senate until a massive WSU led email and phone campaign took away the resolve of the legislature.
Woodward and Emmert actually made some calls over to WSU asking the administration there to put a muzzle on the campaign and were surprised to learn that even though the WSU administration was publically neutral...privately they were encouraging the protest and were not going to stand in its way.
While Woodward said he didn't think was a real factor were efforts by fans of rival Washington State to kill the bill. Several led an organized campaign against it, including renting a plane to fly a banner over the Capital earlier last week urging legislators to vote against it.
"No, it was just irritating," he said, when asked if he thought the Cougars fans' effort killed the bill. "It was just an irritant, that's the best way to put it."
Woodard, however, had some sharp words for the way the WSU administration helped foster that protest.
UW made the case that the precedent of passing a bill like SB 6116 would help both schools down the line. As I have said time and time again what is good for UW is also good for WSU. If UW gets money WSU is sure to get the same opportunity when in need.
The most puzzling part of the equation is that the WSU athletic department is dependent on a running $2 million year subsidy to run the athletic department not to mention that Martin Stadium and Beasley Performing Arts Center were both built with money directly from the state general fund.
Senator Ed Murray has introduced legislation to remove that funding and also restrict WSU from using student generated fees to assist in the remodeling of Martin Stadium or simply help run the athletic department.
I find it interesting that WSU ever let things go this far in an economy like this. The loss of the state subsidy and student fees could conceivably cripple the WSU athletic department enough that they would have to leave the Pac 10 or move the majority of their football games to Seattle to make up for the shortfall.
WSU supporters are betting heavily that it is just a bluff but Senator Murray has made it clear that he will make it a personal mission to stand in the way of any potential non educational funding in the future for Washington State University. Hacking off Murray is similar to messing with Frank Chopp who for all intents and purposes controls the House.
Over in Montlake the first reaction was to cancel an almost done deal to move the Apple Cup to Qwest Field in Seattle. That decision cost WSU an estimated $5.5 million dollars over a six year period.
Most importantly it cost WSU the opportunity to continue a proactive and friendly relationship with UW. Expect Washington and its supporters to show no mercy and give no help to WSU in any matter whether it is sports or academics. A deep line has been carved in the sand and over the years WSU will pay dearly for it.
So now Scott Woodward has to resort to a "Plan B" which means two things. Try the State Legislature again next year or start raising $300 million in some other way. I don't think the outlook will be any better in the 2010 legislative session. The current recession may not be over till 2012 at the earliest so the economic climate will probably get worse rather than get better over the short term.
One thing I have always seriously questioned is why Washington has never formally put together some sort of public fund raising program for the project. The UW athletic department doesn't seem to be interested in donations under $100,000 for this project. To raise $150 million you would need 1500 people to step up with that type of contribution.
$100,000 is a lot of money but even in times like these it shouldn't be difficult to put together a list of possible contributors who would consider that amount chump change.
UW needs to get busy with "Plan B" and while they are at it punish the administration WSU for their absolute idiocy.
49 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A "No Comment"
is tacit approval.
I hope Senator Murray scares the H out of WSU.
The WSU idiots that should up at the SB 6116 public hearing definitely ticked him off to the point of Murray asking them if would they like to lose public funding and as I recall they never gave him an answer.
Maybe we shouldn't be pointing fingers...
Maybe we shouldn’t be asking the tax payers to fund half of a sports stadium? I find it hard to believe that we all think this is the best answer to our stadium problem. I find it hard to ask tax payers for 150 million dollars to fund anything other than a University expansion at this point.
Just trying to find some perspective…
It’s unlikely that we’ll find our own T. Boone Pickens willing to grant the UW hundreds of millions of dollars for athletic facilities; given that reality, the facts are it’s going to be very difficult to privately raise the $300M the UW says Husky Stadium needs.
I’m not a big fan of subsidizing sports stadiums, but that objection is primarily because it is a direct (and very large) financial subsidy of private individuals (professional sports franchise owners) with no proven financial gain for the community. At least with Husky Stadium we’re talking about benefiting a public facility, and the source of the funding has some connection to project we’re asking it to fund.
And it's half the cost people...
…in comparison how much did Paul Allen, a billionaire, kick in for Qwest field?
Washington Husky Football-1991 National Champions
Plan B
Aside from getting 3000 donors to donate $100,000 each, this whole project may need to be redesigned.
The track has to go and field lowered. No question about that. The lower bowl needs to be replaced. Again, no question. What would be the price tag for that? $200 million? More?
After that we have the luxury boxes and the new facilities for training and the coaches. We need to prioritize. What HAS TO be done with the lower bowl? What can wait 5 years? This was one of the most ambitious stadium projects EVER in college football. We may want to scale it back just a bit for now.
I think sitting on our hands waiting for a state handout is going to put us into a terrible situation. We need to move forward and make the major improvements first.
Everything was included...
The 300 million price tag covered lowering the field, a new lower bowl etc. As far as the track facility is concerned the one that is supposed to be shared with baseball stadium, I’m not sure that’s included. This also includes a 50 million dollar football building that sits over the lower bowl on the NW corner of Husky Stadium.
The “entire” project was supposed to consist of two phases. I think the second phase may have been the east side but I’m not entirely clear on that.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions
That's what I've been thinking...
…that makes sense. Prioritize and get started, maybe they can illicit some kind of comittment for help in the future. They kicked in 20% for Hec Ed. If we got 60 million from the state in the future I’d say we did well.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions
The lower bowl first for sure...
…the frikken thing is almost 90 years old. Next the South Side. If we were going to raise 150 million anyway, let’s start with that much work.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
According to Woodward
It is all or nothing because of the complexity. He says it can’t be piece mealed together in phases.
by John Berkowitz on Apr 28, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm a bit skeptical of that statement...
and if that’s the case like you said, start the fundraising. I’m not so sure they haven’t decided to wait for this recession to ease up.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I am as well
I think Woodward is going to say it’s “too complex” to break it out in parts because he wanted to do it all at once with the $150 million of tax money.
Now that the $150 million is out the window for the foreseeable future, its time to get creative with fundraising AND building the stadium.
Like many have said: If there’s a will, there’s a way. He could make it happen if he really wanted to.
Yes!
We need to start brainstorming and put the pieces together. The Club seats will bring in more money. You’ve got naming rights for Husky Stadium. I’m sure there is going to be a tax on each ticket sold. What about student fees? Everything should be on the table.
We already pay a “building for excellence” fee on each season ticket. Well it’s time to use that money for Husky Stadium. Where did the “profit” that the athletic dept generated go? I don’t know that there will be one this year but there has been in the past. If that money got sucked into the general fund, we want it back!
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Woodward
He was smart for doing that. Why show someone your cards? I say push for a token “promise” of future help in finishing the job. 60 million from the state looks pretty good at this point.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno – if you talk about rebuilding the lower bowl, you want to do it right: lower the field, remove the track, completely re-do the West stands to be next to the end zone, widen the concourses and add additional restrooms & concession stands. What’s left after that? If you eventually want to include additional luxury boxes, I suppose you could re-build the lower bowl in such a way as to make adding them at a later date less invasive and costly, but you are increasing the overall costs of the project by doing it in phases. The new football offices that are part of the rebuild of the West end zone section I suppose could be done later, but again, at additional expense.
The plans as they currently exist would obviously need to be re-drawn if the project isn’t done all at once. Splitting the project into multiple phases will increase the overall cost, and I doubt that the project can be neatly split into two $150M phases – I’d bet the minimum necessary to do the lower-bowl rebuild is closer to $200M+.
What he said...
sorry I didn’t read all the way down.
What I meant to say below is that it it’s not as easy as a lower/upper split. A huge design change will have to be made. As a general rule of thumb you can count on an extra 20-30% for each phase. It cost’s alot to move yourself off of a job and then back on it, plus extra design changes, splitting the transport of materials and two sets of inspections, testing and the like. This means that phase one would suddenly go from $150 million to $180 million + and phase 2 goes to about the same, potentially higher, and this assumes no cost overruns or changes.
Basically we need it all in one shot or the state money (let’s assume $60 million) breaks the project even, with no new offices.
If that's the case...
than you finance it. If in fact you can raise 150 million and possibly more by extending the fundraising. You also have to factor in possibly lower costs now vs doing it five or 10 years from now. Maintenance costs on Husky Stadium are said to be 10 million a year without renovation, so factor in those losses.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions
It can be...
it will cost significantly more and it probably can’t be a lower bowl/upper bowl split but it can be phased out, and if it is phased out it will take longer and we’ll probably have to play at Qwest for 2 seasons.
Props to You John
For being two hours ahead of pacific time. As someone that wakes up at 4, 9:30 is my 12:30 and it’s nice to actually have some reading at this time…
Not like the Utah Jazz... it's about REAL jazz. Go Dawgs, Go Blazers!
Ticket fees
I’m sure we’ll be looking at that. Would the UW students vote in a student fee like WSU did?
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions
WSU cooged it...
again.
Many different opinions of Scott Woodward and Mark Emmert have been offered up here and there. One thing we know is that they’re both comfortable and well-schooled in the political arena, and I wouldn’t want them ticked off at me. I don’t think Olympia scares them one bit, and for that reason, I think Sterk, Floyd, and co., may want to check their beds for horse heads over the next few months.
Little brother
I’m almost glad that WSU has decided to be so stupid. This will give the UW administration motivation to “declare war” on WSU and help permanently place them in the bottom of the Pac10. You’d think a university placed in a tiny town in the corner of the state would be smart enough to realize that they NEED taxpayers to bankroll their athletic program. This is going to hurt them FAR worse than it will hurt us.
Now is the time to renovate Husky Stadium, every part of the process is going to be cheaper due to the economy. I don’t care if we have to beg, borrow or steal, we need to get this done NOW. Once the economy recovers the athletic department will be far ahead of other programs that are cutting back.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
WSU's Short Term Vision
While I truly think that WSU was more of irritation in this process, you really need to wonder about the leadership and trustees who declared war on something that has a very long-term affect on their ability to procure funds for more than just athletic development. WSU’s acitivities were very short sighted and will end up hurting not only their athletic program, but also their development as an academic institution. I am a firm believer that our state needs multiple academic institutions to develop talent and promote strong economic growth. One component of strong academic insitutions is the presence of a quality athletic program. At the end of the day, I am really in awe of such petty school rivalry that is detrimental to our state.
Couger is a dish
best served cold at a Husky tailgate party. All I know about the president of WSU is his participation in this stadium issue and that he paid $250K per year to someone he knew nothing about to teach a class in Russian history that will attract very few students. This assumes the guy will stop writing his book in Kentucky and actually move to Pullman. Later the prez admitted that he should have checked out this guy better. Ditto on the stadium.
Poor leadership at the top at WSU
The fallout from all this could ultimately cost him his job.
They just didn’t have a clue on this one.
They needed to put the rivarly thing aside which was for the most part friendly up to this point and they just couldn’t do that. They were motivated by the fear of Washington rebuilding its football program. what they don’t realize is they created a serious enemy and UW will find a way to get it done anyway.
In the end unless there is some rapid side-stepping and apologies this will bury the WSU athletic program.
Sterk quoted the WSU President as saying he didn’t care if that was the end result.
It doesn’t sound like a guy who will be on the job very long.
Just stupid and short sighted.
Coming soon...
The Pacific Nine Conference. The Conference of Champions.
http://www.spartyandfriends.com/
Come on cassino, be realistic . . .
it will never be the Pac Nine, I’m sure Boise State, or Utah, or BYU, or many other teams would be glad to take Wazzu’s place!
I think Wazzu would be ideal for the WAC conference!
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
John,
I’m a fairly new poster here but I’ve been a loyal reader for about the past year. I’d like to believe you that ultimately this will severely hurt the WSU program and that we’ll get HS renovated anyways even without $150 million from the state. But, what leads you to believe that any of this will happen? Anytime we seem to think that good news is forthcoming regarding the HS renovation, something always seems to crush our hopes. And regarding the WSU program being buried, I doubt the amendment by Senator Murray will be passed because what has congress ever done to help UW and also, if it doesn’t pass, what else is a threat to bury WSU?
The reality is...
and correct me if I’m wrong here. The state hasn’t paid anything up to this point for Husky Stadium. Even if they have I doubt it was much. The student body raised the money for HS in the early 20s. I don’t know much about the S upper deck other than it was done in the late 50s? The North Side expansion was in 87 during the Don James glory years.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Hop floats
I have always felt that it was a longshot that the state would contribute. The economic crisis sealed the deal more than anything.
I think denying public funding for athletic programs won’t have any problem passing the Legislature.
It is really all political maneuvering. You do this so I respons with that.
by John Berkowitz on Apr 28, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Like I said...
…this just makes it easier for the state of Washington to pull all support for athletics. While are smaller neighbor down south is doing the opposite.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Can UW Issue a Husky Stadium Bond?
I feel like there are plenty alumns who’d be happy to contribute to the Husky Stadium project as long as they’d see their money again some day. Can UW, or the state on behalf of UW, issue bonds to get this project rolling?
I wondered the same thing...
…can someone else chime in on this?
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
If UW
was a taxing district I believe they could issue bonds like a school district does to build new schools.
Any bond issuance would probably have to be authorized through the legislative process I’m thinking and the there would have to be a mechanism for paying them off, in place, prior to going to the legislature.
School districts
have to hold a levy election for approval of new buildings, a separate levy from the Maintenance & Operation (M&O) levies they run all the time.
Sure...
Sure they can but they also need to service the debt. The whole point has been is they don’t think they can swallow the whole $300 million. That is a lot of moolah coming off an 0-12 season.
by John Berkowitz on Apr 28, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Where there's a will...
…there’s a way.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 3:56 PM PDT reply actions
They raised over 100 million recently...
…for athletic scholarships.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 4:00 PM PDT reply actions
Pay Off Bonds with New Stadium ticketing profit
If UW would get an extra $1.2M in profit by playing a home game at Qwest field, they should be able to make at least that much extra for every home game in a revamped Husky Stadium.
At that rate, with 6.5 home games a year played at Husky Stadium, they could repay the face value of $150M bond issue in 20 years. Not great, but not bad.
Exactly!
There are a lot of ways to generate money over a period of time. Naming Rights, Club Seats, Tickets taxes etc. It is still an expensive proposition but much more doable if you raise a large chunk of what you need first.
by doubledeucedawg on Apr 28, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
This is war boys
This is war now…call it Pearl Harbor. When the California schools want to oust WSU out of the PAC 10 as they would love to do….no more help from the UW. That was a very dumb mistake by WSU.
The State needs to quit subsidizing "Cougar Athletics"
Hey DD I am on a vegeance about the State paying the the bill for stadiums, arenas, subsidies and other buildings for Cougar Athletics. It needs to stop now. Oh yeah… NO WAY IN HELL do we play home and Home at Quest field for the APPLE cup. Great game last Saturday. The quickness of the team…pretty impressive.
by bigdawgdaddy999 on Apr 29, 2009 9:28 PM PDT reply actions
Yeah welcome back bdd!
I thought the offense and defense both looked very sharp. I know it was the ones against the twos but you still can see the execution, it was crisp. Polk has got some wheels, huh?!
Washington Husky Football-1991 National Champions
Tribalism.
this whole situation is degenerating into a tribalistic situation, the east vs. the west. This isnt about the silly sports that each school plays anymore, it is starting to enter the realm of education, which both sides should tred on with light feet. bot parties should NEVER let a rivalry as innane as sharing a state remove them from the true goal of all universities, education.
be careful where you direct your anger and who you direct it at, because in the end, the true loser is the students and the future generations
Yes and this tribalism you speak of...
…may have ended any future funding for capital projects for college athletics. So who are the losers here? Both UW and WSU.
Washington Husky Football-1991 National Champions

by 














