The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

We probably needed a slam dunk. Getting the layup by covering the costs for the next 5 years gives them some leeway to make claims about the 5 years after next. Arguments that all the estimates and accounting for cost are WAY over the top will fall on ears we already know to be deaf.

Get ready for a bloodbath of a socio-political fight. I really wish OSKR knew what they were about to do with the report.

There is more money coming... We didn't make a layup, we tossed it in the air to Filler and company for the alley oop

There are two options here that will ultimately work in our favor;
1) The sports programs return with heighten support from the community and university (IPF, turf practice field, coaches office building, and eventually a stadium)

2) Watts and company refuses and the entire world sees it what is and UAB breaks away from the system due to negligence.

[Edited out the 2017 restart gloom and doom statements - Fiscal Year 2017 is 2016 football season.] If CSS used NCAA accounting method of scholarship costing and the $5800 COA figure, the expenses are overstated in this report too. Doughnut hole should not be as big. Also, Watts said expenses and revenue should be in the middle of rest of C-USA. We are there! Report does seem to throw Watts a bone about bring programs back if it "fits the mission". That is what Watts reminded everyone of in his previous statements.

Don't freak out about 2017. It wasn't meant that way.

@EBRINDLEY: @JTalty Did you make a typo? UAB football should be able to return by 2016, correct? @Jcraft24

@JTalty: @EBRINDLEY Yeah I'm clarifying. It's 2017 fiscal year as listed in that report, but that'd be 2016 football season.

(05-16-2015 12:26 AM)BlazeNBham Wrote:  Don't freak about 2017. It wasn't meant that way.

@EBRINDLEY: @JTalty Did you make a typo? UAB football should be able to return by 2016, correct? @Jcraft24

@JTalty: @EBRINDLEY Yeah I'm clarifying. It's 2017 fiscal year as listed in that report, but that'd be 2016 football season.

+1

I was wondering if the 2017 was correct by them w/ their thinking we're starting over from scratch & would need the 2yrs like UNCC but that isn't really the case w/ us we'd just be a little short of numbers like we were under Callaway's first yr

This is a much better outcome then I expected. $3.1M per year? We've basically got that now after only hitting up the rank and file boosters via word of mouth. Big score for the good guys here.

Just playing devil's advocate here trying to anticipate Watts' problems with the report:

1. How was the deficit calculated? Do the revenues include institutional support? If so, I can see Watts saying we can have football, but only with zero subsidy.

2. I don't think the $3.1M includes facility upgrades. Again, I could see him saying "That's great you guys covered the operating deficit, but in order to achieve sustained excellence we need to invest $XXX million for facilities. Spending that money doesn't fit with our strategic plan."

Not trying to be negative, this report is obviously a major win for UAB fans. Just trying to anticipate how Watts will attempt to discredit the report.

(05-16-2015 12:26 AM)BlazeNBham Wrote:  Don't freak out about 2017. It wasn't meant that way.

@EBRINDLEY: @JTalty Did you make a typo? UAB football should be able to return by 2016, correct? @Jcraft24

@JTalty: @EBRINDLEY Yeah I'm clarifying. It's 2017 fiscal year as listed in that report, but that'd be 2016 football season.

Got it! I took a couple of gulps of oxygen and feel better now.

(05-16-2015 12:48 AM)blzrclub80 Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 12:26 AM)BlazeNBham Wrote:  Don't freak out about 2017. It wasn't meant that way.

@EBRINDLEY: @JTalty Did you make a typo? UAB football should be able to return by 2016, correct? @Jcraft24

@JTalty: @EBRINDLEY Yeah I'm clarifying. It's 2017 fiscal year as listed in that report, but that'd be 2016 football season.

Got it! I took a couple of gulps of oxygen and feel better now.

2016!

(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.

Finis should not be involved with UAB sports

(05-16-2015 03:26 AM)uab278 Wrote:  

(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.

Finis should not be involved with UAB sports

At least he's on record saying if a plan is financially sound, they'd favor bringing it back.

Pretty sure we had a financially sound plan for a OCS a couple of years ago that was denied. Not to mention a donor offering to pay 100% for an artificial turf field that Finis torpedoed.

(05-16-2015 05:10 AM)uab278 Wrote:  Pretty sure we had a financially sound plan for a OCS a couple of years ago that was denied. Not to mention a donor offering to pay 100% for an artificial turf field that Finis torpedoed.

Yep. It's never been about money. I still don't expect a favorable announcement on June 1.

(05-15-2015 11:04 PM)ICB Wrote:  

(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.

It's fiscal year 2017, not calendar year. UAB's fiscal year runs 10/1-9/30. Being in not-for-profit healthcare, ours runs 7/1-6/30, so not uncommon from my perspective.

It's playing in 2016.

(05-15-2015 11:57 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  We probably needed a slam dunk. Getting the layup by covering the costs for the next 5 years gives them some leeway to make claims about the 5 years after next. Arguments that all the estimates and accounting for cost are WAY over the top will fall on ears we already know to be deaf.

Get ready for a bloodbath of a socio-political fight. I really wish OSKR knew what they were about to do with the report.

I believe it's simple arithmetic. If the FF big donors double the $12MM, or come close, it's done. This is assuming this is hard money, meaning ideally fully funded Foundation Dollars in the Bank. If there is "we can pledge $3MM "and when I say something I mean it" sort of talk, its going to be a "we can't run this University on promises" response.

Score tied 40-40. Serve to the the Foundation.

(05-16-2015 09:38 AM)PTBlazer Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 11:57 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  We probably needed a slam dunk. Getting the layup by covering the costs for the next 5 years gives them some leeway to make claims about the 5 years after next. Arguments that all the estimates and accounting for cost are WAY over the top will fall on ears we already know to be deaf.

Get ready for a bloodbath of a socio-political fight. I really wish OSKR knew what they were about to do with the report.

I believe it's simple arithmetic. If the FF big donors double the $12MM, or come close, it's done. This is assuming this is hard money, meaning ideally fully funded Foundation Dollars in the Bank. If there is "we can pledge $3MM "and when I say something I mean it" sort of talk, its going to be a "we can't run this University on promises" response.

Score tied 40-40. Serve to the the Foundation.

What?

(05-16-2015 09:39 AM)kdblazer Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 09:38 AM)PTBlazer Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 11:57 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  We probably needed a slam dunk. Getting the layup by covering the costs for the next 5 years gives them some leeway to make claims about the 5 years after next. Arguments that all the estimates and accounting for cost are WAY over the top will fall on ears we already know to be deaf.

Get ready for a bloodbath of a socio-political fight. I really wish OSKR knew what they were about to do with the report.

I believe it's simple arithmetic. If the FF big donors double the $12MM, or come close, it's done. This is assuming this is hard money, meaning ideally fully funded Foundation Dollars in the Bank. If there is "we can pledge $3MM "and when I say something I mean it" sort of talk, its going to be a "we can't run this University on promises" response.

Score tied 40-40. Serve to the the Foundation.

What?

It's an analogy. It means it's time for the FF to show their hand. Their big full of cash hand.