CSNbbs

UAB situation seems to be looking better by the day. Of course watts can still screw it up.

(05-20-2015 08:54 AM)voss749 Wrote: [ -> ]UAB situation seems to be looking better by the day. Of course watts can still screw it up.

yeah it seems to be looking good, however we never know what the POS is thinking. Our goal is to put the money in front of him and make him eat his words since he said on Dec 2 that the purpose was because of financial reasons..

Watts has made statements about financial commitments only counting if there are "checks in the bank". Pledges may not be enough in his fouled up mind.

Time to rename it the BlazerTalk Gene Bartow Memorial Cart Before the Horse Forum

(05-20-2015 09:49 AM)blzrclub80 Wrote: [ -> ]Watts has made statements about financial commitments only counting if there are "checks in the bank". Pledges may not be enough in his fouled up mind.

That has been common knowledge for a good while now. Why the notion of that is surprising to anyone is beyond me. I am hopeful that Justin Craft and the FF are not ignoring this. It is imperative. Cash in the Bank is what is needed. Not saying it's fair, or equitable, or anything else, I'm saying it's mandatory, at least to my understanding.

True,

Now they are on record as to saying this:

Quote:Quote:
x The Board of Trustees for the University of Alabama system would look favorably upon return of
football, bowling and rifle if such a return were made with sound financial considerations and
plans (Trustee Fess St. John interview).


Quote:
x The UAB Administration would look favorably upon the return of football, bowling and rifle if
such a return were made with sound financial considerations and plans (President Watts interview).

(05-20-2015 10:03 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 09:49 AM)blzrclub80 Wrote: [ -> ]Watts has made statements about financial commitments only counting if there are "checks in the bank". Pledges may not be enough in his fouled up mind.

That has been common knowledge for a good while now. Why the notion of that is surprising to anyone is beyond me. I am hopeful that Justin Craft and the FF are not ignoring this. It is imperative. Cash in the Bank is what is needed. Not saying it's fair, or equitable, or anything else, I'm saying it's mandatory, at least to my understanding.

Then why did the university create the gift agreement form?

(05-20-2015 10:12 AM)4thDownBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 10:03 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 09:49 AM)blzrclub80 Wrote: [ -> ]Watts has made statements about financial commitments only counting if there are "checks in the bank". Pledges may not be enough in his fouled up mind.

That has been common knowledge for a good while now. Why the notion of that is surprising to anyone is beyond me. I am hopeful that Justin Craft and the FF are not ignoring this. It is imperative. Cash in the Bank is what is needed. Not saying it's fair, or equitable, or anything else, I'm saying it's mandatory, at least to my understanding.

Then why did the university create the gift agreement form?

I wouldn't know, other than it is one way to gauge alumni and community support. Additionally, didn't the FF have one out there as well? Maybe to get direct pledges into the Athletic Department so they could see what has really been committed., versus relying on what the FF says.

Just a theory.

(05-20-2015 10:30 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 10:12 AM)4thDownBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 10:03 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 09:49 AM)blzrclub80 Wrote: [ -> ]Watts has made statements about financial commitments only counting if there are "checks in the bank". Pledges may not be enough in his fouled up mind.

That has been common knowledge for a good while now. Why the notion of that is surprising to anyone is beyond me. I am hopeful that Justin Craft and the FF are not ignoring this. It is imperative. Cash in the Bank is what is needed. Not saying it's fair, or equitable, or anything else, I'm saying it's mandatory, at least to my understanding.

Then why did the university create the gift agreement form?

I wouldn't know, other than it is one way to gauge alumni and community support. Additionally, didn't the FF have one out there as well? Maybe to get direct pledges into the Athletic Department so they could see what has really been committed., versus relying on what the FF says.

Just a theory.

The official Campaign for UAB forms are to make the donations official. These are real pledges, whereas the foundation forms were not.

If they were to turnaround and say the Campaign for UAB forms don't count then I think you might have a riot on your hands (and probably a court case)

Official pledges to a university are legally binding. Pledges to the foundation wouldn't fall into that category. The university can't account for pledges not made to the university directly. That's just how governmental accounting works.

http://info.legalzoom.com/nonprofit-pled...24227.html

In this case, if a pledge was made with the understanding that it was an effort to get football started back and UAB actually did reinstate football, UAB could make the case that a binding contract was formed and force payment of such a pledge. They can't do that with pledges to the foundation so it honestly wouldn't make sense for them to take those into account.

EDIT: I'm not sure why they wouldn't count university pledges as "money in the bank." If that is what we're saying then that is unusual.

(05-20-2015 10:37 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote: [ -> ]Official pledges to a university are legally binding. Pledges to the foundation wouldn't fall into that category. The university can't account for pledges not made to the university directly. That's just how governmental accounting works.

http://info.legalzoom.com/nonprofit-pled...24227.html

In this case, if a pledge was made with the understanding that it was an effort to get football started back and UAB actually did reinstate football, UAB could make the case that a binding contract was formed and force payment of such a pledge. They can't do that with pledges to the foundation so it honestly wouldn't make sense for them to take those into account.

EDIT: I'm not sure why they wouldn't count university pledges as "money in the bank." If that is what we're saying then that is unusual.

They have done that in the past. Before the shutdown, donors came to the university willing to sign pledges or with checks in hand and the University turned them down. Then, when the donors went public with their offers of support, Watts responded that he "can't run this University on promises"

UAB supporters are understandably skittish about whether or not UAB is being open, honest, and transparent with the process. However, before it was done in private with a handful of big donors. Now that the process is public and everyone has seen and signed these forms, it would be extremely difficult for them to claim these pledges aren't good enough.

(05-20-2015 10:37 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote: [ -> ]Official pledges to a university are legally binding. Pledges to the foundation wouldn't fall into that category. The university can't account for pledges not made to the university directly. That's just how governmental accounting works.

http://info.legalzoom.com/nonprofit-pled...24227.html

In this case, if a pledge was made with the understanding that it was an effort to get football started back and UAB actually did reinstate football, UAB could make the case that a binding contract was formed and force payment of such a pledge. They can't do that with pledges to the foundation so it honestly wouldn't make sense for them to take those into account.

EDIT: I'm not sure why they wouldn't count university pledges as "money in the bank." If that is what we're saying then that is unusual.

Yes, it is unusual. I've harped on the "cash in the bank mantra" for a couple of months now. It is based on conversations I've had with someone who is close to a board member, who I also know but don't particularly care for. This is what I understand the BOT's thinking to be, and why they are insistent on hard cash. I do not believe this is fair, but it makes sense for a group who really does not want football, and will only reinstate it if forced to.

Regardless of what anyone believes, the pledges for Football are not contracts, and even if they were no University is going to sue it's alums over a $5,000 pledge for the restoration of football. That being said, when teams aren't performing pledges made in better times go uncollected. As an example, when Mike Shula was in the middle of a pitiful season and on the way out the door, the actual pledged dollars to the Athletic Department v. dollars collected were significantly less.

The BOT also believes that there is a significant amount of liability attached to Legion Field. They had a big scare when the deck "was taken down due to safety concerns." It is the city's facility, but lawyers sue the deep pockets, and that is UAB if something were to happen during a game. So, they understand a stadium is inevitable, and is a big part of the equation. They understand if football is reinstated, it is here for eternity, and a $50-100MM stadium will ultimately have to be built by somebody. The decision is much bigger than a $3MM annual shortfall.

I'm told that there needs to be pledges to sustain the program comfortably for a five year period without additional University support over and above what has been given plus a like amount in hard cash in the bank for other things and as a backup.

I'm not saying this all is true or not, it has been passed on to me by someone who really has no dog in the hunt, but who I trust to at least pass on what he claims to have heard. If I were reading it, I think I would treat it as mid to high level rumor. However, I am confident about the cash part. That has been well known and spoken of for months.

Anyway, treat it like you want, but again, don't shoot the messenger.

When did the upper deck fall? I missed that one. I know it was removed after structural engineers recommended removal to he City before something bad could happen.

It was crumbling and there was some incident with a work crew as I remember. In fairness, "fell off" is a little extreme. Taken down due to safety concerns is more accurate.

(05-20-2015 11:30 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote: [ -> ]When did the upper deck fall? I missed that one. I know it was removed after structural engineers recommended removal to he City before something bad could happen.

You didn't hear about that time it collapsed killing thousands of people?

UAB has immunity anyway as a state institution. Next.

(05-20-2015 11:22 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 10:37 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote: [ -> ]Official pledges to a university are legally binding. Pledges to the foundation wouldn't fall into that category. The university can't account for pledges not made to the university directly. That's just how governmental accounting works.

http://info.legalzoom.com/nonprofit-pled...24227.html

In this case, if a pledge was made with the understanding that it was an effort to get football started back and UAB actually did reinstate football, UAB could make the case that a binding contract was formed and force payment of such a pledge. They can't do that with pledges to the foundation so it honestly wouldn't make sense for them to take those into account.

EDIT: I'm not sure why they wouldn't count university pledges as "money in the bank." If that is what we're saying then that is unusual.

Yes, it is unusual. I've harped on the "cash in the bank mantra" for a couple of months now. It is based on conversations I've had with someone who is close to a board member, who I also know but don't particularly care for. This is what I understand the BOT's thinking to be, and why they are insistent on hard cash. I do not believe this is fair, but it makes sense for a group who really does not want football, and will only reinstate it if forced to.

Regardless of what anyone believes, the pledges for Football are not contracts, and even if they were no University is going to sue it's alums over a $5,000 pledge for the restoration of football. That being said, when teams aren't performing pledges made in better times go uncollected. As an example, when Mike Shula was in the middle of a pitiful season and on the way out the door, the actual pledged dollars to the Athletic Department v. dollars collected were significantly less.

The BOT also believes that there is a significant amount of liability attached to Legion Field. They had a big scare when the deck "was taken down due to safety concerns." It is the city's facility, but lawyers sue the deep pockets, and that is UAB if something were to happen during a game. So, they understand a stadium is inevitable, and is a big part of the equation. They understand if football is reinstated, it is here for eternity, and a $50-100MM stadium will ultimately have to be built by somebody. The decision is much bigger than a $3MM annual shortfall.

I'm told that there needs to be pledges to sustain the program comfortably for a five year period without additional University support over and above what has been given plus a like amount in hard cash in the bank for other things and as a backup.

I'm not saying this all is true or not, it has been passed on to me by someone who really has no dog in the hunt, but who I trust to at least pass on what he claims to have heard. If I were reading it, I think I would treat it as mid to high level rumor. However, I am confident about the cash part. That has been well known and spoken of for months.

Anyway, treat it like you want, but again, don't shoot the messenger.

So this information isn't directly from a board member but through a friend that is close to the board member?

(05-20-2015 11:36 AM)Blazing Saddles Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 11:22 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 10:37 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote: [ -> ]Official pledges to a university are legally binding. Pledges to the foundation wouldn't fall into that category. The university can't account for pledges not made to the university directly. That's just how governmental accounting works.

http://info.legalzoom.com/nonprofit-pled...24227.html

In this case, if a pledge was made with the understanding that it was an effort to get football started back and UAB actually did reinstate football, UAB could make the case that a binding contract was formed and force payment of such a pledge. They can't do that with pledges to the foundation so it honestly wouldn't make sense for them to take those into account.

EDIT: I'm not sure why they wouldn't count university pledges as "money in the bank." If that is what we're saying then that is unusual.

Yes, it is unusual. I've harped on the "cash in the bank mantra" for a couple of months now. It is based on conversations I've had with someone who is close to a board member, who I also know but don't particularly care for. This is what I understand the BOT's thinking to be, and why they are insistent on hard cash. I do not believe this is fair, but it makes sense for a group who really does not want football, and will only reinstate it if forced to.

Regardless of what anyone believes, the pledges for Football are not contracts, and even if they were no University is going to sue it's alums over a $5,000 pledge for the restoration of football. That being said, when teams aren't performing pledges made in better times go uncollected. As an example, when Mike Shula was in the middle of a pitiful season and on the way out the door, the actual pledged dollars to the Athletic Department v. dollars collected were significantly less.

The BOT also believes that there is a significant amount of liability attached to Legion Field. They had a big scare when the deck "was taken down due to safety concerns." It is the city's facility, but lawyers sue the deep pockets, and that is UAB if something were to happen during a game. So, they understand a stadium is inevitable, and is a big part of the equation. They understand if football is reinstated, it is here for eternity, and a $50-100MM stadium will ultimately have to be built by somebody. The decision is much bigger than a $3MM annual shortfall.

I'm told that there needs to be pledges to sustain the program comfortably for a five year period without additional University support over and above what has been given plus a like amount in hard cash in the bank for other things and as a backup.

I'm not saying this all is true or not, it has been passed on to me by someone who really has no dog in the hunt, but who I trust to at least pass on what he claims to have heard. If I were reading it, I think I would treat it as mid to high level rumor. However, I am confident about the cash part. That has been well known and spoken of for months.

Anyway, treat it like you want, but again, don't shoot the messenger.

So this information isn't directly from a board member but through a friend that is close to the board member?

That is 100% correct. It is not from a board member. I would treat it as some level of hearsay or rumor and nothing more. I want to be clear about that.

(05-20-2015 11:43 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 11:36 AM)Blazing Saddles Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 11:22 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 10:37 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote: [ -> ]Official pledges to a university are legally binding. Pledges to the foundation wouldn't fall into that category. The university can't account for pledges not made to the university directly. That's just how governmental accounting works.

http://info.legalzoom.com/nonprofit-pled...24227.html

In this case, if a pledge was made with the understanding that it was an effort to get football started back and UAB actually did reinstate football, UAB could make the case that a binding contract was formed and force payment of such a pledge. They can't do that with pledges to the foundation so it honestly wouldn't make sense for them to take those into account.

EDIT: I'm not sure why they wouldn't count university pledges as "money in the bank." If that is what we're saying then that is unusual.

Yes, it is unusual. I've harped on the "cash in the bank mantra" for a couple of months now. It is based on conversations I've had with someone who is close to a board member, who I also know but don't particularly care for. This is what I understand the BOT's thinking to be, and why they are insistent on hard cash. I do not believe this is fair, but it makes sense for a group who really does not want football, and will only reinstate it if forced to.

Regardless of what anyone believes, the pledges for Football are not contracts, and even if they were no University is going to sue it's alums over a $5,000 pledge for the restoration of football. That being said, when teams aren't performing pledges made in better times go uncollected. As an example, when Mike Shula was in the middle of a pitiful season and on the way out the door, the actual pledged dollars to the Athletic Department v. dollars collected were significantly less.

The BOT also believes that there is a significant amount of liability attached to Legion Field. They had a big scare when the deck "was taken down due to safety concerns." It is the city's facility, but lawyers sue the deep pockets, and that is UAB if something were to happen during a game. So, they understand a stadium is inevitable, and is a big part of the equation. They understand if football is reinstated, it is here for eternity, and a $50-100MM stadium will ultimately have to be built by somebody. The decision is much bigger than a $3MM annual shortfall.

I'm told that there needs to be pledges to sustain the program comfortably for a five year period without additional University support over and above what has been given plus a like amount in hard cash in the bank for other things and as a backup.

I'm not saying this all is true or not, it has been passed on to me by someone who really has no dog in the hunt, but who I trust to at least pass on what he claims to have heard. If I were reading it, I think I would treat it as mid to high level rumor. However, I am confident about the cash part. That has been well known and spoken of for months.

Anyway, treat it like you want, but again, don't shoot the messenger.

So this information isn't directly from a board member but through a friend that is close to the board member?

That is 100% correct. It is not from a board member. I would treat it as some level of hearsay or rumor and nothing more. I want to be clear about that.

thanks

(05-20-2015 11:22 AM)PTBlazer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2015 10:37 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote: [ -> ]Official pledges to a university are legally binding. Pledges to the foundation wouldn't fall into that category. The university can't account for pledges not made to the university directly. That's just how governmental accounting works.

http://info.legalzoom.com/nonprofit-pled...24227.html

In this case, if a pledge was made with the understanding that it was an effort to get football started back and UAB actually did reinstate football, UAB could make the case that a binding contract was formed and force payment of such a pledge. They can't do that with pledges to the foundation so it honestly wouldn't make sense for them to take those into account.

EDIT: I'm not sure why they wouldn't count university pledges as "money in the bank." If that is what we're saying then that is unusual.

Yes, it is unusual. I've harped on the "cash in the bank mantra" for a couple of months now. It is based on conversations I've had with someone who is close to a board member, who I also know but don't particularly care for. This is what I understand the BOT's thinking to be, and why they are insistent on hard cash. I do not believe this is fair, but it makes sense for a group who really does not want football, and will only reinstate it if forced to.

Regardless of what anyone believes, the pledges for Football are not contracts, and even if they were no University is going to sue it's alums over a $5,000 pledge for the restoration of football. That being said, when teams aren't performing pledges made in better times go uncollected. As an example, when Mike Shula was in the middle of a pitiful season and on the way out the door, the actual pledged dollars to the Athletic Department v. dollars collected were significantly less.

The BOT also believes that there is a significant amount of liability attached to Legion Field. They had a big scare when the deck "was taken down due to safety concerns." It is the city's facility, but lawyers sue the deep pockets, and that is UAB if something were to happen during a game. So, they understand a stadium is inevitable, and is a big part of the equation. They understand if football is reinstated, it is here for eternity, and a $50-100MM stadium will ultimately have to be built by somebody. The decision is much bigger than a $3MM annual shortfall.

I'm told that there needs to be pledges to sustain the program comfortably for a five year period without additional University support over and above what has been given plus a like amount in hard cash in the bank for other things and as a backup.

I'm not saying this all is true or not, it has been passed on to me by someone who really has no dog in the hunt, but who I trust to at least pass on what he claims to have heard. If I were reading it, I think I would treat it as mid to high level rumor. However, I am confident about the cash part. That has been well known and spoken of for months.

Anyway, treat it like you want, but again, don't shoot the messenger.

Don't worry, the plenty enough money will be there in firm, irrevocable pledges, not money in the bank. It is ludicrous to expect boosters to contribute actual money to a program which does not exist and which Watts might never elect to bring back. To my knowledge there is absolutely no precedent for that. Watts can try that "its has to be money in the bank" crap, but doing so would be equivalent to saying, "I was never going to restore football under any circumstances - the whole Task Force thing was just sham to keep you b@st@rds busy and off of my case, and it worked - Ha, ha, ha!"

If Watts pulls that crap, and the UA Trustees continue to support him, I predict we will have a free UAB by the end of the next legislative session. The local and national media will have a hay day exploring why and they will eventually expose the truth. Everyone in the State of Alabama except the idiots will know that UAB must be removed from the evil clutches of the UA BOT. Those Trustees will be lucky to stay in control of the Tuscaloosa campus.