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

We need to sign him to a long term deal NOW!!!! What is taking so damn long

(06-03-2015 01:04 PM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  We need to sign him to a long term deal NOW!!!! What is taking so damn long

It's called negotiations and they are never quick. Relax and let the process proceed.

I thought the same thing, but money is an issue at the moment. We need to get some facilities built and then give him a nice big raise and extension. I still can't believe the man stuck with us through all of this.

(06-03-2015 01:08 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  I thought the same thing, but money is an issue at the moment. We need to get some facilities built and then give him a nice big raise and extension. I still can't believe the man stuck with us through all of this.

Me either. I can't imagine going through this with out him.

(06-03-2015 01:07 PM)blazerjay Wrote:  Relax and let the process proceed.

This has been the Blazer M.O. for far too long.

I want HC Clark signed to a 5 year deal in the $600-$750,000 range. I want there to be a $50,000 bonus for grade average goals, $50,000 bonus for graduation rate goals, $50,000 for winning season (particular if base is $600K), $100,000 for winning a bowl game and $250,000 if UAB wins C-USA. There should be a promise of facilities upgrade each year on a schedule agreed upon by AD Ingram and HC Clark. There sure be a commitment to the construction of OCS beginning by the third year. By the way, the $500,000 for 2016 left in his current contract, should be a bonus for hanging around - Dang It!

Finally, someone, please, talk some sense into Watts (and if necessary AD Ingram) about bond issues funding athletic facilities and the servicing of said debt being covered by boosters and corporations.

All that said, it will be real interesting to see how the BoT responds to HC Clarks contract renewal. That will tell a lot about how rough UAB football's waters will be with the current BoT structure in the future.

(06-03-2015 02:08 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote:  I want HC Clark signed to a 5 year deal in the $600-$750,000 range. I want there to be a $50,000 bonus for grade average goals, $50,000 bonus for graduation rate goals, $50,000 for winning season (particular if base is $600K), $100,000 for winning a bowl game and $250,000 if UAB wins C-USA. There should be a promise of facilities upgrade each year on a schedule agreed upon by AD Ingram and HC Clark. There sure be a commitment to the construction of OCS beginning by the third year. By the way, the $500,000 for 2016 left in his current contract, should be a bonus for hanging around - Dang It!

Finally, someone, please, talk some sense into Watts (and if necessary AD Ingram) about bond issues funding athletic facilities and the servicing of said debt being covered by boosters and corporations.

All that said, it will be real interesting to see how the BoT responds to HC Clarks contract renewal. That will tell a lot about how rough UAB football's waters will be with the current BoT structure in the future.

Wonder who is on the Compensation Committee of the BOT or whether there is a separate Athletics Comp Committee. We know that there are some folks to watch out for on the BOT who are on a committee that deals with Athletics already.

The current spotlight probably will prevent any shenanigans. Nothing would surprise anyone, of course.

The prior statements of support for Dr. Watts and his autonomy, I believe, are currently working against those that were behind the shutdown to begin with.

(06-03-2015 02:08 PM)blzrclub80 Wrote:  There should be a promise of facilities upgrade each year on a schedule agreed upon by AD Ingram and HC Clark. There sure be a commitment to the construction of OCS beginning by the third year.

I can't imagine that there will be any promises in Clark's new contract of additional facilities or an OCS. Should there be - Yes, will there be - No. Watts made it clear the boosters would have to fund any facilities and the university will not float a bond adding that the city will have to build a new stadium (which the Mayor said the city cannot afford).

Watts can't promise what he won't agree to deliver. Don't expect any of that to change unless Watts is thrown out, and even then......well, the BOT will still be in charge. Watts and the the Evil 3 may have been forced to give us our team back, but they are very angry, and will try to make it as hard as possible to sustain it.

(06-03-2015 01:53 PM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 01:07 PM)blazerjay Wrote:  Relax and let the process proceed.

This has been the Blazer M.O. for far too long.

Seems as if many here would like to take that same approach to building an OCS.

I'm not sure Clark will sign a contract that doesn't guarantee facilities improvements on specific timelines. That stuff was even in the last contract to some degree.

(06-03-2015 03:17 PM)thebernreuter Wrote:  I'm not sure Clark will sign a contract that doesn't guarantee facilities improvements on specific timelines. That stuff was even in the last contract to some degree.

if there is no facility guarantees, then we need to sign him to at least a 6 year contract extension like Haase. Haase got 6 year deal worth 6M (1M per year)

(06-03-2015 03:29 PM)4thDownBlazer Wrote:  

(06-03-2015 03:17 PM)thebernreuter Wrote:  I'm not sure Clark will sign a contract that doesn't guarantee facilities improvements on specific timelines. That stuff was even in the last contract to some degree.

if there is no facility guarantees, then we need to sign him to at least a 6 year contract extension like Haase. Haase got 6 year deal worth 6M (1M per year)

Clark said several times that he would come back to UAB as long as bringing back football was done "the right way." I assumed he meant building facilities immediately.

Granted, UAB won't issue bonds. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility of issuing bonds through the formation of a P3 (public-private partnership), of which UAB is a part, right?

Take the PACE board for instance (which, funny enough, Mackin is/was part of). That entity issued the bonds for construction of Regions Field. I assume the City backed the bonds in that case and the same could be done for a UAB facilities related project.

This new board would secure enough money to satisfy the debt payments, the City would back the bonds, and UAB would take ownership of the properties once completed.

I'm not well-versed in that world but my guess is that UAB could get a lot more bang for their buck by servicing the debt on $100MM worth of projects vs. spending, say, $50MM of donor money all at once. I'm preaching to the choir, I know, but I hope someone is looking into the feasibility of that approach.