http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ch_it.html
UAB's athletic department would have an annual deficit of $3.165 million if it reinstated football, rifle and bowling, according to a school commissioned report, obtained by AL.com
CSS deduced that both continuing to exist without the three sports and reinstating them were "viable options" for UAB. However, it also stated in the report that due to the strong desire throughout the community for the sports to return a decision to reinstate them would boost donations greater than current levels.
"It would foster much goodwill and stimulate a substantial amount of spiritual and financial support from alumni, donors, ticketholders, friends, students, faculty and the community," CSS wrote. "It could create a unique opportunity, not only through that support, but also through unprecedented positive national attention to the University."
Without football, UAB would still lose money until 2020 where it would make a $152,201 profit, according to CSS' projections.
I assume none of the 7.5 mil in pledges for 5 years is included which would have us making money! Also not including Bham and Student raised fees that are committed. This appears to be a huge win with this report and we dont even have Fillers announcement yet
The CSS report speculates that football could return in 2017, and that ticket sales and donations would increase in that scenario.
2016! 2016! 2016!
For the first time in six months I am feeling truly optimistic about how this will end.
So we are still running a deficit through 2020 with no football. The true "donut hole" number should not be the $3+ million, but the difference in 2016 sans-football or with it.
Lose $3.1 million per year on football or lose $2.3 million per year in C-USA revenues. Let me guess what ol' Ray will do.
So we are talking roughly $15M spread out over 5 years. We already have pledges nearly matching that without so much as a significant PR campaign and effort to raise funds. And this is without the announcement by Filler as well.
Definitely a good report and momentum for Free UAB. Not just with the amounts projected but with their commentary and conclusions.
(05-15-2015 10:50 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]Lose $3.1 million per year on football or lose $2.3 million per year in C-USA revenues. Let me guess what ol' Ray will do.
3.1 mil is 15.5 mil over 5 years. We're already at 12 mil with the donations and haven't even hit the big boys yet. Score one for the good guys
The trump card could be the Football Foundation setting up an endowment to fund the $3mm out beyond the 5-year period. I also think it's funny they interviewed Finis.
I wonder if their report included facilities?
I think the Watzis wanted 2017 in there. They can still save face but sentence us to Legion Field yet again whilst also running off Bill Clark.
I'd personally like to see their numbers as to what was included in both scenarios as far as revenues etc to say more but it kinda looks like they took a middle ground approach. Not sure how in the long term w/o football they arrived at the profit by 2020??? You'd think that if however they figured that, there'd be the same scenario for football since revenues would be increasing much more rapidly w/ fb than w/o
(05-15-2015 10:58 PM)FNblazer Wrote: [ -> ]I think the Watzis wanted 2017 in there. They can still save face but sentence us to Legion Field yet again whilst also running off Bill Clark.
Everything i heard was that things were in place such that if FB was reinstated 2016 would be doable. 2017 is not what I wanted to read.
(05-15-2015 10:58 PM)FNblazer Wrote: [ -> ]I think the Watzis wanted 2017 in there. They can still save face but sentence us to Legion Field yet again whilst also running off Bill Clark.
CUSA would have to sign off on allowing UAB an extra year, too. Consider also what has been done to increase athletic department yearly expenses since the Car report w/o which the number would be much less:
...increases in basketball coaches salary - probably close to $1 million a year - and the crazily-inflated cost of attendance number of $5200 per athlete. It would be truly ironic if that inflated COA number being so high results in a higher quality of athlete choosing UAB, basically the reverse of its probable intent...
(05-15-2015 10:53 PM)ICB Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if their report included facilities?
Looking at that number, I think it is just the funding gap between what the school was doing and what was needed. Then again, I suspect that this is where Jimmy Filler and friends come in.
The bastards definitely used the NCAA deceiving cost accounting, but were encouraging in their wording. Never mind, we will have the money gap more than covered, but their is absolutely no advantage and heavy costs if the the program restart is delayed until 2017 instead of 2016.
An endowment is probably not in the cards with today's pitiful investment returns (say 4 % guarantee) would require 75 million. I would see the FF role as fundraising to pay for the hopefully declining future football deficits and any needed facilities eventually for all sports (post watts).
(05-15-2015 10:53 PM)FNblazer Wrote: [ -> ]The trump card could be the Football Foundation setting up an endowment to fund the $3mm out beyond the 5-year period. I also think it's funny they interviewed Finis.
(05-15-2015 10:53 PM)ICB Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if their report included facilities?