(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.