have not traveled to any great extent. I know what the limitations are from what we can schedule in the stadium during baseball and also during football. We also have limitations in football. I have a considerable amount of correspondence that I have gotten through the years for the use of the stadium that knowing what our contracts are with both baseball and football I can only follow out the dictates of what they represent. Now I have not traveled considerably. I have contacted many of the managers throughout this country; in other words, that manage stadiums. We also have a group of people who belong to an organization which confer with one another and from whom we also get reports and have an annual convention at which we discuss and talk about what is in all these stadiums. You can be sure that the Armory Board, and as far as I am concerned personally, that every effort has been made. Senator, I might say that I have a combination job which many people in the country do not have. Operating both the stadium and the National Guard Armory. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have an assistant in charge of promotion or exploration of new business or any such category as that? Mr. BERGMAN. I had an assistant at one time, he retired just recently. At the present time we do not have a promotional type of thing that represents the Armory Board. The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever submitted a request to the Armory Board to have a deputy or assistant in charge of sales promotion or whatever title will suit you with the duty of trying to get new business? Mr. BERGMAN. At one time we had a man who was employed in that position. Actually, we are a booking agent for all the activities that come into the stadium-baseball, football, and religious activity. They all have their promotional activity to promote that particular bill. We schedule many events over there. The CHAIRMAN. If they came to you, you schedule them. If they call you and say: "We want to come," you will take them. Jehovah's Witnesses or whatever other promoters come to you. You will accept their contract if it is a viable one if they come to you, is that correct? Mr. BERGMAN. Well, we have conversations. I do a certain amount of correspondence relative to activities that are scheduled in these first books that are received and also that we think might offer a potential show for the armory or for the stadium. This is carried on. The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever contacted, for instance, the University of Virginia with a view toward having the University of Virginia play an annual football game in RFK Stadium, whether against Maryland or some other team? Mr. BERGMAN. We have asked the University of Virginia. The CHAIRMAN. When did you last ask the University of Virginia of any potential interest in playing in RFK Stadium? Mr. BERGMAN. I talked to them, I would say, about 3 years ago. The CHAIRMAN. Everything seems to be 3 years ago. We have a letter that we will put in the record that the University of Virginia thinks there is a possibility of scheduling a game at RFK Stadium. We also have letters from the University of Maryland and Department of the Navy that we will place in the record. (The letters follow:) UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, Charlottesville, Va., November 30, 1971. Hon. THOMAS F. EAGLETON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON: Thank you very much for your letter of November 18, 1971, regarding the use of RFK Stadium in the District of Columbia. I have discussed your questions with Mr. Eugene F. Corrigan, Director of University Athletic Programs. The University's football schedules have already been adopted for most games for the next eleven years. This does not mean, however, that we are not prepared to move some of our games if the necessary arrangements are satisfactory. I think there is a possibility of scheduling the Maryland-Virginia game at RFK Stadium, if representatives of both schools can come to an agreement regarding them, including special concessions for the students at each institution. I regret that my response to your letter cannot at this time be more definite. Mr. Corrigan will telephone your office today or tomorrow, so as to meet your deadline of December 1st with at least this much information, and he will assure you, as I do, of the willingness of the University of Virginia to pursue your proposal further if that is desired by you and by President Elkins. Sincerely yours, DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON: This is in response to the questions raised in your letter of November 18, 1971. Our football scheduling is normally done about ten years in advance. Substantial guarantees to the visiting teams are integral to all of our football contracts. In the case of Virginia, for example (as well as for all of our other Atlantic Coast Conference opponents), we must pay a $35,000 guarantee to the visiting team. Current attendance is not sufficient to support guarantees of this size and still realize an appreciable profit of our own. Compounding the financial problem in the use of RFK Stadium would be the very high cost of rental, lighting, ushers, and the like, which must be paid to the Stadium authorities before any remaining gate receipts can be divided between the participating teams. These overhead costs alone could be prohibitive. Finally, the transfer of a Maryland home game from College Park to the District would create a serious problem with our student body, who are admitted free to all of our home games in Byrd Stadium. For a game in RFK Stadium, even if we could admit them free (which is doubtful), the students' opposition to moving the game off campus would be substantial. For all of these reasons, we do not feel it would be in our best interest to schedule any of our football games in RFK Stadium in the foreseeable future. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely yours, WILSON H. ELKINS, President. Hon. THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Washington, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON: The Deputy Secretary of Defense has asked me to reply to your letter of November 18, 1971 wherein you request information concerning the possible use of RFK Stadium by the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy, and pose questions concerning the scheduling of our annual Navy/Air Force game at RFK Stadium, having Navy play one of its "home" games there, and how far into the future the Navy schedule is finalized. Concerning an annual Navy/Air Force game played at RFK Stadium; when the schedule for Air Force/Navy games was initially drawn up, the use of a neutral site for each game was considered. Due primarily to the heavy logistics cost inherent in such a plan, the inconvenience to both academies and the obligation of the academies to home area supporters, it was decided that use of a neutral site for all games would not be feasible. Therefore, commencing in 1972, the two services will alternate in choosing the site for the game. The Naval Academy was favorably impressed with the stadium site for the previous Navy/Air Force game and would probably consider RFK a good choice for some future games when the choice of site belongs to the Naval Academy. The Air Force Academy, too, was pleased with RFK. However, Air Force is presented with a considerably larger logistic problem in playing at RFK than Navy. Further, Air Force has scheduled Navy and Army in alternate years as one of five annual home games of the future and has sold season tickets based substantially on these games. As to the chances of having Navy play one of its "home" games at RFK Stadium; there are the significant considerations of conveniences, financial arrangements and loyalty and respect for home supporters in Annapolis. Transportation of the brigade is a substantial logistics problem and involves considerable expense. Since construction of the new stadium at Annapolis, there has been no requirement for additional stadium capacity for home games, excepting perhaps, the home-coming game. Therefore, incurring financial obligations for RFK Stadium would not be in the best interests of the Academy. Regarding the finalization of the Navy football schedule, the schedule is normally firmed up 10 years in advance. The current schedule is firm until 1981. However, there is a possibility of including an additional, 11th, game as some colleges are now doing. The question of the 11th game has not yet been resolved. I trust that this provides you with the information you require. Sincerely yours, V. G. LAMBERT, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy, Deputy Director, Naval Education and Training. The CHAIRMAN. When have you last contacted Navy with the view to having Navy play an annual game perhaps against Air Force just as Navy plays Army annually at a neutral field in Philadelphia? Mr. BERGMAN. I talked to Navy-in fact I have a meeting again with Navy next week. I have tried to sell the Navy on the idea of playing, and which I think they could play and you might note that I mentioned this in my context here, how they could be helpful to us. I know that my Board agrees and I know that Mayor Washington has talked to these people, in other words, to try to get the Navy to play at least one game here every year. The Navy, of course, played here last year; they played the Air Force. The Army played George Washington here. Years ago I was asked the question why the Army-Navy game was not played here. Well, when we were constructing the stadium I was told by Members of the Congress and particularly the State of Pennsylvania that the ArmyNavy game would always be played in Philadelphia and that they probably would not be interested in playing here in the District of Columbia. The CHAIRMAN. I make reference to Navy-Air Force. I realize ArmyNavy has, the memory of man not to the contrary, been played in Philadelphia. Before I yield to Senator Weicker, I insert in the record the 1970 Annual Reports of the Armory Board and call attention on page S-12 to "Advertising expenses," under "Administrative expenses." (The material follows :) of a sudden don't you see this whole list sort of diminishing into the background and we again become dependent on one enterprise? Mayor WASHINGTON. I don't know that that is necessarily so. I can say that a natural tendency would be to retrench from that list. I would suspect I would present it to the Armory Board if a team was in here. I would think that this would be a normal tendency but I am hoping that will not be the case. I am hoping that time will permit us to look upon the stadium with a new thrust and consider some of these areas which have great benefit and great interest from the citizen point of view. I am talking now not only about the District but the entire metropolitan area of some 3 million people could be served. I am looking at what we have today and where we are going tomorrow. That is why I think that list is important, that we try to stay with it and evaluate it in terms of this situation-with or without a team. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mayor. We appreciate your presentation. Mayor WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We will now call as witnesses Mr. Arthur J. Bergman, Manager of the Armory Board, who will be accompanied by Mr. Harry M. Linowes, certified public accountant. While Mr. Bergman and Mr. Linowes are coming forward, I will put into the record at this point, because it will serve as the basis of some of my questioning and I gather also Senator Weicker's, a list on one page of the events that have taken place at RFK Stadium since 1966. Events other than the Redskins and the Senators, If you exclude the Redskins and the Senators even when you include the Darts soccer club, there is this tiny minuscule list of other things that have taken place at the stadium in the calendar years 1966-70. It all fits very comfortably on one short piece of paper which causes me to think that the stadium is not being very well used. If I am wrong in that notion, I am sure the next witnesses will educate me. But this short list will now be made a part of the record. (The list follows:) |