(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

You are such a dumb ass. I figured you liked the time you spent working at Tech.

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

You could say the same for the student athletic fees that just about every other school in the conference has.

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

Yes....those students will probably protest over their $50 per quarter self assessed fee. Maybe you should stop and look up the fees other CUSA programs assess for their athletics programs. Compared to most, Louisiana Tech's are chump change.

(08-11-2016 04:17 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

You could say the same for the student athletic fees that just about every other school in the conference has.

Damn, damn. You guys frustrate me to no end with your absolute ignorance. The La Tech fee was voted in by the students as a STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEE, has nothing to do with sports. It was designed to bring in funds to enhance facilities throughout the campus, INCLUDING SPORTS VENUES, thus Tech was able to use that as a bonding source to build out your south end zone. It IS NOT a student ATHLETIC fee. Huge difference.

(08-11-2016 05:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 04:17 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

You could say the same for the student athletic fees that just about every other school in the conference has.

Damn, damn. You guys frustrate me to no end with your absolute ignorance. The La Tech fee was voted in by the students as a STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEE, has nothing to do with sports. It was designed to bring in funds to enhance facilities throughout the campus, INCLUDING SPORTS VENUES, thus Tech was able to use that as a bonding source to build out your south end zone. It IS NOT a student ATHLETIC fee. Huge difference.

You need to calm yourself down. These fees are welcome. Its $50, thats next to nothing. Thats less than what our parking passes cost. As a current student, I welcome this small fee. There is a huge wave of improvements happening right now. Like 4 areas are being cleared. More parking is being made. Some current parking is being completely repaved. All the lines are being repainted. Its improving our campus experience, and will continue to fund improvements. More improvements are to come. Nobody cares about a few hundred dollars when you are already spending many thousands

There he is! I figured you were either dead or researching. Glad it was just researching.

(08-11-2016 05:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 04:17 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

You could say the same for the student athletic fees that just about every other school in the conference has.

Damn, damn. You guys frustrate me to no end with your absolute ignorance. The La Tech fee was voted in by the students as a STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEE, has nothing to do with sports. It was designed to bring in funds to enhance facilities throughout the campus, INCLUDING SPORTS VENUES, thus Tech was able to use that as a bonding source to build out your south end zone. It IS NOT a student ATHLETIC fee. Huge difference.

Call it what you want. Every school in the conference imposes fees on their students that support athletics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Both are correct. It is a creative way to improve athletic facilities for the betterment of the school..its semantics, really. It is how the money is channeled and under what label..

(08-11-2016 06:16 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 05:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 04:17 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  [quote='HogDawg' pid='13464414' dateline='1470944813']



That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

You could say the same for the student athletic fees that just about every other school in the conference has.

Damn, damn. You guys frustrate me to no end with your absolute ignorance. The La Tech fee was voted in by the students as a STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEE, has nothing to do with sports. It was designed to bring in funds to enhance facilities throughout the campus, INCLUDING SPORTS VENUES, thus Tech was able to use that as a bonding source to build out your south end zone. It IS NOT a student ATHLETIC fee. Huge difference.

Call it what you want. Every school in the conference imposes fees on their students that support athletics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/qe]

Everybody EXCEPT La Tech. Tech DOES NOT impose a student athletic fee although just recently, within past 2yrs, autorized to do so. The Tech student facility enhancement fee is NOT imposed for athletics, it is a fee that is used to enhance any or all facilities on campus. Note the new parking, etc. It just so happens that the school elected to dip into that fund to complete the south end zone project, a FACILITY.

What is the issue here?

(08-11-2016 06:47 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  What is the issue here?

EE is fine charging an athletics fee to students. He's not fine charging a facility fee to them and using part of it on an athletics facility while allowing them free entry into all athletic events. He thinks we should add an additional athletics fee.

(08-11-2016 06:16 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 05:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 04:17 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

You could say the same for the student athletic fees that just about every other school in the conference has.

Damn, damn. You guys frustrate me to no end with your absolute ignorance. The La Tech fee was voted in by the students as a STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEE, has nothing to do with sports. It was designed to bring in funds to enhance facilities throughout the campus, INCLUDING SPORTS VENUES, thus Tech was able to use that as a bonding source to build out your south end zone. It IS NOT a student ATHLETIC fee. Huge difference.

Call it what you want. Every school in the conference imposes fees on their students that support athletics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That and they all will have future students that are pissed off!

Glad EE is back but he is such an easy target and I'm sure all these improvements at JAS are costing him years off his life.

(08-11-2016 07:48 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:47 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  What is the issue here?

EE is fine charging an athletics fee to students. He's not fine charging a facility fee to them and using part of it on an athletics facility while allowing them free entry into all athletic events. He thinks we should add an additional athletics fee.

No, I dont care what kind or how many fees Tech imposes or how many or what kind the students impose upon themselves. What I dislike is lying or implications that deflect from the truth. Tech, in this situation, implied or muddies the subject whereby it isnt really clear as to the source of those $40mil in funding. Why didnt the relelase state that $40mil was overall cost which was secured through PRIVATE INVESTMENT and STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEES. Otherwise, no one has any idea or would they even know about the significant student investments and they definitely deserve that credit as most all are strapped for funds.

(08-11-2016 08:40 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 07:48 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:47 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  What is the issue here?

EE is fine charging an athletics fee to students. He's not fine charging a facility fee to them and using part of it on an athletics facility while allowing them free entry into all athletic events. He thinks we should add an additional athletics fee.

No, I dont care what kind or how many fees Tech imposes or how many or what kind the students impose upon themselves. What I dislike is lying or implications that deflect from the truth. Tech, in this situation, implied or muddies the subject whereby it isnt really clear as to the source of those $40mil in funding. Why didnt the relelase state that $40mil was overall cost which was secured through PRIVATE INVESTMENT and STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEES. Otherwise, no one has any idea or would they even know about the significant student investments and they definitely deserve that credit as most all are strapped for funds.

Probably just for you EE

(08-11-2016 08:53 PM)winston70 Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:40 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 07:48 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 06:47 PM)Doots4Dawgs Wrote:  What is the issue here?

EE is fine charging an athletics fee to students. He's not fine charging a facility fee to them and using part of it on an athletics facility while allowing them free entry into all athletic events. He thinks we should add an additional athletics fee.

No, I dont care what kind or how many fees Tech imposes or how many or what kind the students impose upon themselves. What I dislike is lying or implications that deflect from the truth. Tech, in this situation, implied or muddies the subject whereby it isnt really clear as to the source of those $40mil in funding. Why didnt the relelase state that $40mil was overall cost which was secured through PRIVATE INVESTMENT and STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEES. Otherwise, no one has any idea or would they even know about the significant student investments and they definitely deserve that credit as most all are strapped for funds.

Probably just for you EE

Dont you think the students should get credit too. The TEch south end zone would still be a dream if the students hadnt stepped forward by voting in the enhancement fee whereby bonds could be sold to insure its funding. The students will be paying off those bonds over the next 22 years.

The students did get credit for their part in the DAC as well as the other facility enhancements around campus. The pressbox is a separate project. The article stressed private and non-state funding was used for people like EE that would have a cow for this type of spending given the financial situation of the state. No need to rehash past details - not common for these types of releases from ANY school.

And yes - it's semantics as to wether a student athletic fee as used by most schools or a $ per qtr facility fee. If students can freely access games, I see no problem having them pony up. It's all just a shell game public and private entities play - even EEs beloved school. Future students do have to pay off the $ without any say - just like future students will shell out a student athletic fee without any say. Like any tax - once it's there, it only stays the same or goes up - never goes away.

And everything on campus - EVERY CAMPUS - would be a dream without students and their $.

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

Why would they be "pissed." If a student chooses to attend Louisiana Tech University they will know what their tuition and fees include. They either choose Tech or they don'tI . Your unfounded complaint does not change the FACT that the funds are "non-state revenue sources." I wonder what the @ Lafayette fan who is posing as a ULM fan on this board thinks of this?

(08-11-2016 09:56 PM)stodgdog Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

Why would they be "pissed." If a student chooses to attend Louisiana Tech University they will know what their tuition and fees include. They either choose Tech or they don'tI . Your unfounded complaint does not change the FACT that the funds are "non-state revenue sources." I wonder what the @ Lafayette fan who is posing as a ULM fan on this board thinks of this?

Hey Bill, I bet LACajns is sheitting his creole knickers! BAHAHAHAHA

(08-11-2016 05:04 PM)zharkins Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

When I was a student in the mid 70's we paid a $25/qtr Athletic Fee as itemized on our invoice. My assumption was this paid our tickets for all sports events.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

Yes....those students will probably protest over their $50 per quarter self assessed fee. Maybe you should stop and look up the fees other CUSA programs assess for their athletics programs. Compared to most, Louisiana Tech's are chump change.

(08-11-2016 05:15 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 04:17 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 03:53 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 02:46 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 04:53 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Worried about Eager Eagle. This thread has his name written all over it. Has anyone heard from him lately?

Quote:The cost of these additions combined with the money spent on construction of the Davison Athletics Complex and installation of new field turf last year means over $40 million will have been invested in the facility in a three-year time frame. All of the $40-plus million total has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenue sources.

That paragraph above is really going to piss off "Eager Eagle".

http://www.latechsports.com/genrel/080916aaa.html

Well, for your info, the last part of the last sentence needs to be clarified. The statement that the total $40mil-plus has been generated through private investment and other non-state revenues should explain the NON-STATE REVENUE SOURCES includes approx $14,950,000 still owed by the STUDENTS as they pay off the bonds issued to build your end zone project. Doesnt piss me off at all, they voted it upon themselves however I do feel somewhat sad for those students coming in later who had no choice in the matter as the vote was taken before their time, they are the ones that will be pissed.

You could say the same for the student athletic fees that just about every other school in the conference has.

Damn, damn. You guys frustrate me to no end with your absolute ignorance. The La Tech fee was voted in by the students as a STUDENT FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEE, has nothing to do with sports. It was designed to bring in funds to enhance facilities throughout the campus, INCLUDING SPORTS VENUES, thus Tech was able to use that as a bonding source to build out your south end zone. It IS NOT a student ATHLETIC fee. Huge difference.

It provides for facilities. How is this a "huge difference?" It is not, as it is descriptive of its purpose. Man, you just want to unjustly and unfairly criticize Tech. Why? It makes no sense. According to you, you are a grad of a Mississippi school and a citizen of Mississippi. Why do you even have an opinion? Even if you do reside in La. you do not seem to have an interest in Tech Tech, i.e., do not attend or have dependents that attend Tech, other that to criticize. Why don't you complain about how our state and country foolishly spends our money on ineffective and inefficient programs that benefit no one?