If you actually click through on the Knight Study link from the Solomon story, which he wrote clearly to attack UAB, because all of the data is twisted by him to give a negative view of UAB without putting in its proper context (OK, enough ranting about that asshat), you find data on facilities.
Athletic Facilities Debt Service, 2005-2011:
UAB: $56,128 (2008, earliest year data available) to $0. That's right, UAB has ZERO facilities debt for athletics.
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa: $130,190,648 to $207,197,936, a 59 percent increase;
Auburn: $61,524,429 to $106,073,955, a 63 percent increase;
SEC Median: $52,710,061 to $106,073,955, a 101 percent increase;
All FBS Median: $20,250,000 to $33,097,334, a 63 percent increase.
Nothing should justify that much outstanding debt on athletic facilities. Imagine the academic buildings that could be built with that kind of money. You know, buildings where students would learn something meaningful.
It's just further proof that the BOT's claim of debt service as a reason for no facilities at UAB is total BS. That debt at Tuscaloosa is NEVER going to be repaid.
Just add that to his story
You will get a lot of bammer comments
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
(12-05-2013 03:21 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]If you actually click through on the Knight Study link from the Solomon story, which he wrote clearly to attack UAB, because all of the data is twisted by him to give a negative view of UAB without putting in its proper context (OK, enough ranting about that asshat), you find data on facilities.
Athletic Facilities Debt Service, 2005-2011:
UAB: $56,128 (2008, earliest year data available) to $0. That's right, UAB has ZERO facilities debt for athletics.
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa: $130,190,648 to $207,197,936, a 59 percent increase;
Auburn: $61,524,429 to $106,073,955, a 63 percent increase;
SEC Median: $52,710,061 to $106,073,955, a 101 percent increase;
All FBS Median: $20,250,000 to $33,097,334, a 63 percent increase.
Nothing should justify that much outstanding debt on athletic facilities. Imagine the academic buildings that could be built with that kind of money. You know, buildings where students would learn something meaningful.
It's just further proof that the BOT's claim of debt service as a reason for no facilities at UAB is total BS. That debt at Tuscaloosa is NEVER going to be repaid.
In 2012, the BOT approved $202 million in Fraternity and Sorority House new builds and upgrades. For 1200 residents. And the BOT forgave or rolled into the new debt $50 million in existing debt outstanding for the houses being replaced after being open for 20 years. At $650 a month per bed, these new houses will be paid for in ~21.5 years. At full capacity. Just for the room. Not utilities. Not upkeep. Not with new carpet or furniture in 10 years.
Records from the Alabama Commission on Higher Education show that the Tuscaloosa campus had $661 million in bond debt as of Sept. 30, 2012, with $50 million due annually in payments
And one thing that is NEVER investigated, is "Why does commercial construction at the University of Alabama cost 2x or 3x more than anywhere else in the state ?"
Someone should print that out and staple it to Solomon's forehead.
(12-05-2013 03:39 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2013 03:21 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]If you actually click through on the Knight Study link from the Solomon story, which he wrote clearly to attack UAB, because all of the data is twisted by him to give a negative view of UAB without putting in its proper context (OK, enough ranting about that asshat), you find data on facilities.
Athletic Facilities Debt Service, 2005-2011:
UAB: $56,128 (2008, earliest year data available) to $0. That's right, UAB has ZERO facilities debt for athletics.
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa: $130,190,648 to $207,197,936, a 59 percent increase;
Auburn: $61,524,429 to $106,073,955, a 63 percent increase;
SEC Median: $52,710,061 to $106,073,955, a 101 percent increase;
All FBS Median: $20,250,000 to $33,097,334, a 63 percent increase.
Nothing should justify that much outstanding debt on athletic facilities. Imagine the academic buildings that could be built with that kind of money. You know, buildings where students would learn something meaningful.
It's just further proof that the BOT's claim of debt service as a reason for no facilities at UAB is total BS. That debt at Tuscaloosa is NEVER going to be repaid.
Records from the Alabama Commission on Higher Education show that the Tuscaloosa campus had $661 million in bond debt as of Sept. 30, 2012, with $50 million due annually in payments
And pretty much all of that bond debt uses UAB health system income as collateral.
(12-05-2013 03:21 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]If you actually click through on the Knight Study link from the Solomon story, which he wrote clearly to attack UAB, because all of the data is twisted by him to give a negative view of UAB without putting in its proper context (OK, enough ranting about that asshat), you find data on facilities.
Athletic Facilities Debt Service, 2005-2011:
UAB: $56,128 (2008, earliest year data available) to $0. That's right, UAB has ZERO facilities debt for athletics.
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa: $130,190,648 to $207,197,936, a 59 percent increase;
Auburn: $61,524,429 to $106,073,955, a 63 percent increase;
SEC Median: $52,710,061 to $106,073,955, a 101 percent increase;
All FBS Median: $20,250,000 to $33,097,334, a 63 percent increase.
Nothing should justify that much outstanding debt on athletic facilities. Imagine the academic buildings that could be built with that kind of money. You know, buildings where students would learn something meaningful.
It's just further proof that the BOT's claim of debt service as a reason for no facilities at UAB is total BS. That debt at Tuscaloosa is NEVER going to be repaid.
Au Contraire mon fraire. Every UAT football home game brings in between $10-12 million to the Tuscaloosa economy. And those are city of Tuscaloosa numbers, not including UAT Athletics.
(12-05-2013 04:07 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2013 03:21 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]If you actually click through on the Knight Study link from the Solomon story, which he wrote clearly to attack UAB, because all of the data is twisted by him to give a negative view of UAB without putting in its proper context (OK, enough ranting about that asshat), you find data on facilities.
Athletic Facilities Debt Service, 2005-2011:
UAB: $56,128 (2008, earliest year data available) to $0. That's right, UAB has ZERO facilities debt for athletics.
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa: $130,190,648 to $207,197,936, a 59 percent increase;
Auburn: $61,524,429 to $106,073,955, a 63 percent increase;
SEC Median: $52,710,061 to $106,073,955, a 101 percent increase;
All FBS Median: $20,250,000 to $33,097,334, a 63 percent increase.
Nothing should justify that much outstanding debt on athletic facilities. Imagine the academic buildings that could be built with that kind of money. You know, buildings where students would learn something meaningful.
It's just further proof that the BOT's claim of debt service as a reason for no facilities at UAB is total BS. That debt at Tuscaloosa is NEVER going to be repaid.
Au Contraire mon fraire. Every UAT football home game brings in between $10-12 million to the Tuscaloosa economy. And those are city of Tuscaloosa numbers, not including UAT Athletics.
The Tuscaloosa economy is not University money. And that revenue does not include the expenses to the city (which is one of the things I love about "economic projections." They always overestimate the revenue and never estimate, at all, the associated expenses (see BCS bowl revenue vs. expenses).
I would love to see the expense report for UAT for each home game vs. revenues, so we can see what the real profit is.
(12-05-2013 04:07 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote: [ -> ]Au Contraire mon fraire. Every UAT football home game brings in between $10-12 million to the Tuscaloosa economy. And those are city of Tuscaloosa numbers, not including UAT Athletics.
last I checked Ua-t and the system don't get a dime of that tax revenue from the city for any of the home games. Although it helps out the city, it isn't exactly helping pay the debt on frat houses paid for by the University system.
(12-05-2013 04:27 PM)Dracorex Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2013 04:07 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote: [ -> ]Au Contraire mon fraire. Every UAT football home game brings in between $10-12 million to the Tuscaloosa economy. And those are city of Tuscaloosa numbers, not including UAT Athletics.
last I checked Ua-t and the system don't get a dime of that tax revenue from the city for any of the home games. Although it helps out the city, it isn't exactly helping pay the debt on frat houses paid for by the University system.
That is the comparison to be made.
If the City of Tuscaloosa is bringing in $10 million per home date on food, gas and hotel rooms, how much is UAT getting for tickets, parking, concessions, etc. I would wager a Milos big lunch combo that UAT is bringing in an equal amount as the city, or more.
(12-05-2013 03:46 PM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]Someone should print that out and staple it to Solomon's forehead.
And y'all think I'm "the bad one" around here!
(12-05-2013 03:39 PM)BlazerPhil Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2013 03:21 PM)Grammar-Nazi Wrote: [ -> ]If you actually click through on the Knight Study link from the Solomon story, which he wrote clearly to attack UAB, because all of the data is twisted by him to give a negative view of UAB without putting in its proper context (OK, enough ranting about that asshat), you find data on facilities.
Athletic Facilities Debt Service, 2005-2011:
UAB: $56,128 (2008, earliest year data available) to $0. That's right, UAB has ZERO facilities debt for athletics.
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa: $130,190,648 to $207,197,936, a 59 percent increase;
Auburn: $61,524,429 to $106,073,955, a 63 percent increase;
SEC Median: $52,710,061 to $106,073,955, a 101 percent increase;
All FBS Median: $20,250,000 to $33,097,334, a 63 percent increase.
Nothing should justify that much outstanding debt on athletic facilities. Imagine the academic buildings that could be built with that kind of money. You know, buildings where students would learn something meaningful.
It's just further proof that the BOT's claim of debt service as a reason for no facilities at UAB is total BS. That debt at Tuscaloosa is NEVER going to be repaid.
In 2012, the BOT approved $202 million in Fraternity and Sorority House new builds and upgrades. For 1200 residents. And the BOT forgave or rolled into the new debt $50 million in existing debt outstanding for the houses being replaced after being open for 20 years. At $650 a month per bed, these new houses will be paid for in ~21.5 years. At full capacity. Just for the room. Not utilities. Not upkeep. Not with new carpet or furniture in 10 years.
Records from the Alabama Commission on Higher Education show that the Tuscaloosa campus had $661 million in bond debt as of Sept. 30, 2012, with $50 million due annually in payments
And one thing that is NEVER investigated, is "Why does commercial construction at the University of Alabama cost 2x or 3x more than anywhere else in the state ?"
Because the person selling the concrete is getting a wad of cash out of it.
Back when Bama was talking of moving the last few games from B'ham to B-D Stadium, the Tuscaloosa business organizations promised a large amount of money to UA ANNUALLY to get them to move all games to that city. I don't recall the exact figure, but it was in the millions. I would presume those payments are still being made now that Bama has an even larger stadium and has at least 7 or 8 home games (4 SEC + 3 or 4 "money games") each year.
Tuscaloosa's population last I heard was about 70,000 so on a good game day, they become one of the largest cities in Alabama and those who can afford all the costs of being there have lots of money to spend.
![[Image: f+(8).jpg]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_aoW_4lnkCp4/TMM8E5JBCEI/AAAAAAAAAeE/ZfKkM9sObJE/s400/f+(8).jpg)