CSNbbs

Translation: You're being more successful than we anticipated, so we're going to get a bit more involved. Don't get too big for your britches.

This is the same drivel that the BOT has given to UAB as a university and its athletics program for the past 46 years. The message is the same as always: "We are not going to provide any real help to you but if you're able to do it on your own we are more than willing to take credit for it."

I remember to my freshman days in 1989 and seasoned professors at UAB telling me about how in the early days that they could not even get supplies for the classrooms from the BOT. And they were told to try to go fundraiser & get them on their own.

There also seems to be an underlying tone about "we will never build an on-campus Stadium. You should probably build it near the Civic Center."

There is a lot of vagueness in those statements they have made, but the overriding idea, we are going to control your future, not you. For goodness sakes, look at the people on that no-good committe! Clay Ryan? PBJ ? Finis St. JOHN ?

The signal from the BoT is "nice you are raising some money and if someone else will pay for it, you can play at a stadium near the Civic Center but there will be no discussion of an on-campus stadium. By they way to assure good communications with Birmingham, we will put three of UAB athletic's worse enemies on the committee just to keep everyone in their rightful place."

"Our Board and the fundraising committee recognize and endorse the UAB
Administration’s commitment that no more than the current $20 million per year
of university funds will be allocated to athletics."

I've always had trouble with this. 1) Costs for everything increase and there is no sense that the BOT will increase this accordingly; 2)There is nothing to prevent the spending of the entire $20M on other athletic-related expenses (Barlow lights/upgrades, for example); 3) considering 1 and 2 UAB football could end up being COMPLETELY dependent on donations...

Also,
how can a committee of 20 people lead to better communication between two entities(including 1 member who probably doesn't know he's on the committee)...

(09-04-2015 02:04 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote: [ -> ]The signal from the BoT is "nice you are raising some money and if someone else will pay for it, you can play at a stadium near the Civic Center but there will be no discussion of an on-campus stadium. By they way to assure good communications with Birmingham, we will put three of UAB athletic's worse enemies on the committee just to keep everyone in their rightful place."

I think they are hoping the BJCC builds a facility that we get put into so that when we get our current facility list taken care of, it will be too late for an OCS.

Total garbage on all accounts. Looks like even though PBJ is off the board he is still on the committee to help improve BOT and UAB relations. What a joke

To paraphrase the Klingon chancellor from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: There will be no peace, so long as PBJ lives.

Translation: Don't forget who's in charge and be grateful for your table scraps.

This is exhausting.

(09-04-2015 02:28 PM)blazerball25 Wrote: [ -> ]Total garbage on all accounts. Looks like even though PBJ is off the board he is still on the committee to help improve BOT and UAB relations. What a joke

Seriously. PBJ is the gift that keeps on giving.

Hey UAB. Don't drop the soap.

The talk of the BJCC facility reads like the BOT saying they will never approve an OCS.

The whole saga is exhausting

Just listen to the double-speak & negative outlook:

"The fundraising committee will also spearhead the campaign to raise $13-
15 million for upgraded facilities identified by President Watts as necessary to
make UAB competitive in the long run.
OK, yes, we know that. WE THE FANS, STUDENTS & ALUMNI made it happen

These tasks will not be easy. Especially with BOT obstructionism

We pledge to assist this effort in any way we can and look forward to the campaign’s success." "There is nothing we are really going to do or contribute, but good luck with ALL THAT."


So why again does the BOT need to suddenly create a bogus committee, suddenly create a Twitter account as of 9-4-2015 ( @UASystem ) and make "statements" about things WE already know about and that WE made happen and continue to MAKE HAPPEN?

Because its a P.R. stunt to deflect attention away from their true self. If they can be seen as part of the solution, they are not part of the problem.

The problem is though, these statements are all hollow words - they mean nothing and achieve nothing. They say "let us know what we can do" in the same way people say to a mere acquaintance who has a family member die. they know there is nothing they are really going to do, but want to make themselves appear friendly, whether they mean it or not.

I just don't see any use in this committee or these statements other that to make it look like the "Fundraising Committee" was part of their doing.

It's funny who wants to take credit for successful ventures after traction is gained.

...and then from Karen Brooks:


"Under the guidance of fundraising committee chairman Hatton Smith, we
expect this group to lead the effort.

Uhhhh, why are you sounding like the parent of a child who just got a new puppy?

Despite the sometimes difficult debate of the past few months, if the result is a financially sound program, broadly supported
by students, alumni and fans, then this process will have been a great success.

"Debate? This has been and continues to be a "debate"?

We stand ready to support and assist in any way we can." Prove it, don't just give empty statements that waste our time.

(09-04-2015 02:53 PM)BlazerHam Wrote: [ -> ]I just don't see any use in this committee or these statements other that to make it look like the "Fundraising Committee" was part of their doing.

It's funny who wants to take credit for successful ventures after traction is gained.

As the old saying goes... Success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan.

and then there was this :

President Pro Tem Karen Brooks and UAB President Ray Watts have
named a committee comprised of Birmingham leaders, Trustees and System
officials to foster improved communication between the University System and
the Birmingham community.

Members of the committee are:

Charles Collat
Tony Davis
Boots Gale Clay Ryan's boss & namesake of Maynard, Cooper & Gale
Mike Goodrich, II
John D. McMahon
Kate Nielson
Charlie Perry
Clay Ryan
Wes Smith
Stan Starnes
Karen Brooks
Paul Bryant, Jr.
Barbara Humphrey
John D. Johns
Vanessa Leonard
Britt Sexton gave $300,000 to Crimson Tradition Fund, how much to UAB? http://www.rolltide.com/genrel/121202aaa.html
Finis St. John
Allen Bolton
Michael Bownes BOT Atty > http://uasystem.ua.edu/board-of-trustees...the-board/
C. Ray Hayes
Ray Watts
Robert E. Witt


Hello !! If you want to create a committee to "foster improved communication between the University System and
the Birmingham community", you MIGHT want to include REAL members of the community that have been your most vocal critics. Instead you have chosen to stack this committee (that does WHAT, I don't know) with some of the most inflammatory characters that have hampered this process.

Barbara Humphrey? She's about as much of UAB as a rock is to float. She showed her support during all of this...none.
BULLCRAP

(09-04-2015 02:13 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]"Our Board and the fundraising committee recognize and endorse the UAB
Administration’s commitment that no more than the current $20 million per year
of university funds will be allocated to athletics."

I've always had trouble with this. 1) Costs for everything increase and there is no sense that the BOT will increase this accordingly; 2)There is nothing to prevent the spending of the entire $20M on other athletic-related expenses (Barlow lights/upgrades, for example); 3) considering 1 and 2 UAB football could end up being COMPLETELY dependent on donations...

Also,
how can a committee of 20 people lead to better communication between two entities(including 1 member who probably doesn't know he's on the committee)...

The $20m amount bothers me. I don't want them to reduce the direct subsidy by the increase in student fees. They need to maintain the direct subsidy at $14.5m and the student fees will increase based on enrollment and the proposed fee increase.

Speaking of the increase - has the increase been approved? I believe it was going to amount to an extra $800k per year.