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

It never amazes me that every time we have major good news-in this case a commitment from a kid who is a program maker, the AD does something that distracts from the good news. Think about it-several great football commits, the stadium is apparently officially a done deal, even his precious track and field facilities-then you finally get your revenge for Coach Townsend supporting the football program and eliminate one of the last direct connections to Coach Bartow on the staff.

This kind of stupidity is why we never have been able to keep the momentum in the program. While we may not pull the money, it sure makes it hard to be happy when you give it. When I was home last time I met with Jim Furlong and committed to a regular, not very massive gift. I'll still do it, but I'll ***** when I see the deduction and remember Ingram and Fat Ray are still here

The elimination of an admiin position does not offset the good news of a football commitment in the public awareness. Only among the very hardcore

Several people were let go. Mark has capped spending even though we are at record levels fundraising handcuffing Coaches. There is a lot going on begins the scenes and it isn’t pretty. Not sure that I am allowed to say anything more at this time other than its not good.

(06-26-2018 09:20 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  The elimination of an admiin position does not offset the good news of a football commitment in the public awareness. Only among the very hardcore

That may be true, but the hardcore are your program evangelists.

It's a LOT more than what he knows about. It's been from day one.

(06-26-2018 09:35 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Several people were let go. Mark has capped spending even though we are at record levels fundraising handcuffing Coaches. There is a lot going on begins the scenes and it isn’t pretty. Not sure that I am allowed to say anything more at this time other than its not good.

I thought the budget cap was something the BOT/administration set a couple years ago as part of football's return? I certainly think we should be able to spend the money we've successfully fund raised as we see fit though. I'm sure the BOT/admin opposing view would be that all the fundraising success should mean a proportionally reduction in institutional investment. I don't agree with that, but I bet that's where the problem lies.

(06-26-2018 10:16 AM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:35 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Several people were let go. Mark has capped spending even though we are at record levels fundraising handcuffing Coaches. There is a lot going on begins the scenes and it isn’t pretty. Not sure that I am allowed to say anything more at this time other than its not good.

I thought the budget cap was something the BOT/administration set a couple years ago as part of football's return? I certainly think we should be able to spend the money we've successfully fund raised as we see fit though. I'm sure the BOT/admin opposing view would be that all the fundraising success should mean a proportionally reduction in institutional investment. I don't agree with that, but I bet that's where the problem lies.

The budget isn't capped but the institutional subsidy is. I'm sure they've been told since fundraising has done so well they have to reduce spending to decrease the subsidy.

It's more important than ever to give not only to the department but also those funds set up to assist the coaches outside of control of administration

The message was simple. if you want football you have to be able to afford it. that means being financially responsible and cutting expenses. Ingram is getting blamed for policies he didn't set. he is just doing what he's told.

(06-26-2018 10:41 AM)biglizard Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:16 AM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:35 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Several people were let go. Mark has capped spending even though we are at record levels fundraising handcuffing Coaches. There is a lot going on begins the scenes and it isn’t pretty. Not sure that I am allowed to say anything more at this time other than its not good.

I thought the budget cap was something the BOT/administration set a couple years ago as part of football's return? I certainly think we should be able to spend the money we've successfully fund raised as we see fit though. I'm sure the BOT/admin opposing view would be that all the fundraising success should mean a proportionally reduction in institutional investment. I don't agree with that, but I bet that's where the problem lies.

The budget isn't capped but the institutional subsidy is. I'm sure they've been told since fundraising has done so well they have to reduce spending to decrease the subsidy.

It's more important than ever to give not only to the department but also those funds set up to assist the coaches outside of control of administration

That sucks, but it does make sense.

(06-26-2018 10:16 AM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:35 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Several people were let go. Mark has capped spending even though we are at record levels fundraising handcuffing Coaches. There is a lot going on begins the scenes and it isn’t pretty. Not sure that I am allowed to say anything more at this time other than its not good.

I thought the budget cap was something the BOT/administration set a couple years ago as part of football's return? I certainly think we should be able to spend the money we've successfully fund raised as we see fit though. I'm sure the BOT/admin opposing view would be that all the fundraising success should mean a proportionally reduction in institutional investment. I don't agree with that, but I bet that's where the problem lies.

The budget cap is University money, they are capping what we can spend above and beyond that. There is more to it than that. I'll just leave it at that.

(06-26-2018 10:56 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:16 AM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:35 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Several people were let go. Mark has capped spending even though we are at record levels fundraising handcuffing Coaches. There is a lot going on begins the scenes and it isn’t pretty. Not sure that I am allowed to say anything more at this time other than its not good.

I thought the budget cap was something the BOT/administration set a couple years ago as part of football's return? I certainly think we should be able to spend the money we've successfully fund raised as we see fit though. I'm sure the BOT/admin opposing view would be that all the fundraising success should mean a proportionally reduction in institutional investment. I don't agree with that, but I bet that's where the problem lies.

The budget cap is University money, they are capping what we can spend above and beyond that. There is more to it than that. I'll just leave it at that.

That makes sense. What I'm wondering is the following example:

Say in years past the institutional subsidy was $20M and fundraising was $2M. If now we've increased fundraising to $5M are they wanting to cut the subsidy to $17M? So in essence we've raised more money, but it doesn't result in additional spending if UAB is reducing the amount of the institutional subsidy.

(06-26-2018 12:28 PM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:56 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:16 AM)hooverblazer Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:35 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  Several people were let go. Mark has capped spending even though we are at record levels fundraising handcuffing Coaches. There is a lot going on begins the scenes and it isn’t pretty. Not sure that I am allowed to say anything more at this time other than its not good.

I thought the budget cap was something the BOT/administration set a couple years ago as part of football's return? I certainly think we should be able to spend the money we've successfully fund raised as we see fit though. I'm sure the BOT/admin opposing view would be that all the fundraising success should mean a proportionally reduction in institutional investment. I don't agree with that, but I bet that's where the problem lies.

The budget cap is University money, they are capping what we can spend above and beyond that. There is more to it than that. I'll just leave it at that.

That makes sense. What I'm wondering is the following example:

Say in years past the institutional subsidy was $20M and fundraising was $2M. If now we've increased fundraising to $5M are they wanting to cut the subsidy to $17M? So in essence we've raised more money, but it doesn't result in additional spending if UAB is reducing the amount of the institutional subsidy.

That's the only way that it could possibly work, because they would be opening themselves to a lawsuit if they are diverting donations away from their intended purposes

That's their way of diverting funds from their intended purpose in front of your face without diverting funds from their intended purpose. Why use that money for recruiting, nutrition, or anything else coach wants to use it for when you can be paying down the subsidy?

Is the plan for there to be no subsidy? Surely there has to be a subsidy floor in mind. Even then, according to the USA Today article, the baseline G5 allocation is ~$20M.

(06-26-2018 03:50 PM)Auburn_Blazer Wrote:  Is the plan for there to be no subsidy? Surely there has to be a subsidy floor in mind. Even then, according to the USA Today article, the baseline G5 allocation is ~$20M.

Right. The BOT budget hawks that don't have our best interests in mind will use the "fiscal responsibility" crutch to argue the subsidy should be reduced, but I doubt they will ever give you a floor. In their mind it should probably be zero even though that is completely against the norm and means the University has no skin in the game even though it receives more than the value of the subsidy in ancillary benefits.

(06-26-2018 03:39 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  That's their way of diverting funds from their intended purpose in front of your face without diverting funds from their intended purpose. Why use that money for recruiting, nutrition, or anything else coach wants to use it for when you can be paying down the subsidy?

I wonder if giving with specific strings attached would be effective? Like, "hey I'll give you this $100k, but it must be spent to purchase 17 new weight machines."

There are some on the BoT, as well as our own University President, who want football to wither and die again. The tip of that spear is their own hand picked Athletic Director, who may or may not want football to die, but who was hired to run off Clark, has never quit trying to do so and if anything has stepped up his efforts to be a thorn in Clark's side since the success of last year. Since step one in damaging football is getting rid of Clark, Ingram is in the "kill football" group even if he doesn't realize it.

I love a good conspiracy.

(06-26-2018 04:42 PM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  I love a good conspiracy.

Surely, you can admit that the optics of this whole thing are bad though, right?

I mean, creating a position only to eliminate it 10 months later is sketchy enough. But to have it center around a person of her caliber takes it a step further. If she's as vital as he said she was when he created that position, then you don't let something like this happen to her.

Also, we've heard the "fiscal responsibility" line for a long, long time. He's either tone deaf to the relationship the BOT and UAB have had for decades, or he's reciting his marching orders. Either way, it's bad.

Add to all of that, he just got a raise! Your boss firing you because of budget cuts after he gets his new contract is just a bad look...I don't care who you are.

He said that in 14 as well. Lol.