(05-21-2015 01:54 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  After all the pledges for funds and all the voices of support and the newest report, Watts still kills football? If he does then he meant to do it all along despite any show of support and financial promises. Makes no sense to have a second study if his mind was already made up.

Problem was this last study did not recommend anything it stated both options are viable. It was slanted pro football but never stated it. In theory it provided Watts with an out by saying the non football is just as viable. That would not be the option I would choose but it is still a valid option. He can use the CSS report to show absence of malice; this is only fact wise but not truth wise.

(05-21-2015 12:07 PM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Why in the world would this guy announce for a 2nd time UAB football is done....

If it comes to pass, he'll be doing it the 2nd time for the same reason he did it the first time: to end FBS football in Birmingham at the behest of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, who spend their days yelling "Roll Tide!"

This was never about anything else.

(05-21-2015 03:11 PM)BlazerGold09 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:01 PM)marlonfield Wrote:  where was this support before?, is a pledge a guarantee that they will pay all this money to the school. They could say it just to get football and not ever pay

FOR THE 10 MILLIONTH TIME....

The money has always been there. This is the first time ever donors were allowed to give to football and not just over all athletics. Also, you have to understand a large chunk of that money is from people who have been moved by the situation and also want to see downtown Birmingham continue to thrive. We have ZERO issues gaining band wagon supporters.

Which that is mind blowing to me. As long as I've been alive and most likely longer at ECU you could earmark your donations anywhere you pleased, for whatever purpose you pleased. The school could only use the money for that. We have unrestricted giving, restricted, and permanently restricted. Unrestricted, is just that, if it is to athletics they can use for anything. Restricted is for a specific project, but when it's paid, any leftover becomes unrestricted. Permanently restricted can only be used for what is given to and nothing else. Of course it has a down side, we had people give for football and for baseball and given nicely, but restricted the money to those sports, so we couldn't use it for basketball or Olympic Sports. That has hurt basketball over the years, but allowed us to build football up to where it is.

(05-21-2015 04:40 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:11 PM)BlazerGold09 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:01 PM)marlonfield Wrote:  where was this support before?, is a pledge a guarantee that they will pay all this money to the school. They could say it just to get football and not ever pay

FOR THE 10 MILLIONTH TIME....

The money has always been there. This is the first time ever donors were allowed to give to football and not just over all athletics. Also, you have to understand a large chunk of that money is from people who have been moved by the situation and also want to see downtown Birmingham continue to thrive. We have ZERO issues gaining band wagon supporters.

Which that is mind blowing to me. As long as I've been alive and most likely longer at ECU you could earmark your donations anywhere you pleased, for whatever purpose you pleased. The school could only use the money for that. We have unrestricted giving, restricted, and permanently restricted. Unrestricted, is just that, if it is to athletics they can use for anything. Restricted is for a specific project, but when it's paid, any leftover becomes unrestricted. Permanently restricted can only be used for what is given to and nothing else. Of course it has a down side, we had people give for football and for baseball and given nicely, but restricted the money to those sports, so we couldn't use it for basketball or Olympic Sports. That has hurt basketball over the years, but allowed us to build football up to where it is.

Yeah we've always used restricted and unrestricted giving, only critical issue is that restricted giving doesn't count toward your priority points.

(05-21-2015 12:48 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  To UAB folks...what's the street credibility of Rep. Williams? Does he know what he's talking about? Or is this political gasoline on the fire to generate some heat under President Watts? This sounds ominous, if he's creditable.

Absolutely credible and knows what he is talking about.

@repjack says UAB Booster Jimmy Filler commits $7.5 million to build on campus stadium. Total donations to bring back 3 sports over $15m

https://twitter.com/fox6alancollins/stat...0007963648

SGA = 4 million
Birmingham = 2.5 million
NAS = 500k
Private donations = 7.5 million +
Jimmy Filler donation = 7.5 million

So we're hovering around 22 million right now. Obviously the Jimmy filler donation is conditional.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...s_who.html

(05-21-2015 04:40 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:11 PM)BlazerGold09 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:01 PM)marlonfield Wrote:  where was this support before?, is a pledge a guarantee that they will pay all this money to the school. They could say it just to get football and not ever pay

FOR THE 10 MILLIONTH TIME....

The money has always been there. This is the first time ever donors were allowed to give to football and not just over all athletics. Also, you have to understand a large chunk of that money is from people who have been moved by the situation and also want to see downtown Birmingham continue to thrive. We have ZERO issues gaining band wagon supporters.

Which that is mind blowing to me. As long as I've been alive and most likely longer at ECU you could earmark your donations anywhere you pleased, for whatever purpose you pleased. The school could only use the money for that. We have unrestricted giving, restricted, and permanently restricted. Unrestricted, is just that, if it is to athletics they can use for anything. Restricted is for a specific project, but when it's paid, any leftover becomes unrestricted. Permanently restricted can only be used for what is given to and nothing else. Of course it has a down side, we had people give for football and for baseball and given nicely, but restricted the money to those sports, so we couldn't use it for basketball or Olympic Sports. That has hurt basketball over the years, but allowed us to build football up to where it is.

Until people understand the internal politics of this state & the UA BOT (which controls UAB/UAH as well as much of state politics), you will never truly understand why we've been unable to give to UAB except by royal decree/many hoops to jump through to still be denied in the end. It'd take a PHD degree at your university along w/ residency requirements to fully understand it

Good luck UAB! We're pulling for you!

If the numbers on the support add up, what then can the BOT do to still kill football? I mean, if the financial backing is there to support and improve the program how does that original decision get overturned and process get going for rebuilding it?

Jimmy Filler, a big time UAB donor and Birmingham businessman, met with President Watts and surprisingly liked what he heard. He said he feels a "whole lot better today than I have in the past" about the return of UAB football after the meeting. He also said reports that Watts would kill the program on Friday night were "1000 percent untrue."

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2015/5/21...positively

This is crazy. One day I'm convinced UAB football will be back, the next day I'm sure that UAB football is finished. I'm ready to know one way or the other already.

(05-21-2015 06:40 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  If the numbers on the support add up, what then can the BOT do to still kill football? I mean, if the financial backing is there to support and improve the program how does that original decision get overturned and process get going for rebuilding it?

That's the biggest thing "outsiders" don't understand about the situation & would take so long to explain. This is a corrupt/a**backwards state controlled by UAT, for UAT & of UAT grads/leanings. Auburn is the only other university in the state that is strong enough & has a following strong enough to hold off their shenanigans & we're the only university besides UAH that are under their direct control & they did a similar dry run on UAH hockey a couple of years ago. They do as they please & answer to no one in their eyes so can do as they please. The state media will only do token work to bring it to light lest they lose access to "The Precious". E$PN also only does token reporting against UAT lest they hurt their cash cow & also lose access to "The Precious" as well.

(05-21-2015 07:58 PM)blazerwkr Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 06:40 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  If the numbers on the support add up, what then can the BOT do to still kill football? I mean, if the financial backing is there to support and improve the program how does that original decision get overturned and process get going for rebuilding it?

That's the biggest thing "outsiders" don't understand about the situation & would take so long to explain. This is a corrupt/a**backwards state controlled by UAT, for UAT & of UAT grads/leanings. Auburn is the only other university in the state that is strong enough & has a following strong enough to hold off their shenanigans & we're the only university besides UAH that are under their direct control & they did a similar dry run on UAH hockey a couple of years ago. They do as they please & answer to no one in their eyes so can do as they please. The state media will only do token work to bring it to light lest they lose access to "The Precious". E$PN also only does token reporting against UAT lest they hurt their cash cow & also lose access to "The Precious" as well.

Would the enemy of my enemy be my friend in that case? Get Aubrun to assist you in taking down Bama?

In some ways they have taken a few shots at their fellow $EC protagonist but for the most part are staying out of it which I don't really have a problem with. Many UAT fans have said what a shame it has been that this happened & support us but when push comes to shove, they're basically "sucks to be you" but RTR.

If Ray Watts has the final say and is the one who determines whether UAB remains in CUSA for football (obviously if we kick them out for other sports we can't count those losses) and if CUSA's TV deal suffers from losing the Birmingham market for football, is Ray Watts then financially liable to CUSA for the loss of revenue? I think it would behoove CUSA to get two numbers from bidders. One with UAB football market and one without. It would then be nice to send him, personally, a bill for the difference.

Pulling football should be no different a breach of contract than moving the team to a different conference. And the TV revenue discrepancy liability, as we know, is already part of the contract that hangs over all the CUSA schools.

Sending the bill to him personally would force him to have to ask the University and BoT for funding to pay that debt and it would be a worthwhile jab, imo.

(05-21-2015 08:53 PM)MUther Wrote:  If Ray Watts has the final say and is the one who determines whether UAB remains in CUSA for football (obviously if we kick them out for other sports we can't count those losses) and if CUSA's TV deal suffers from losing the Birmingham market for football, is Ray Watts then financially liable to CUSA for the loss of revenue? I think it would behoove CUSA to get two numbers from bidders. One with UAB football market and one without. It would then be nice to send him, personally, a bill for the difference.

Pulling football should be no different a breach of contract than moving the team to a different conference. And the TV revenue discrepancy liability, as we know, is already part of the contract that hangs over all the CUSA schools.

Sending the bill to him personally would force him to have to ask the University and BoT for funding to pay that debt and it would be a worthwhile jab, imo.

I don't think so. The decision of a team to pull out of a conference could be for any number of reasons. Each conference imposes fees to member schools if they decide to leave. I don't believe there is any specific reason for their pulling out which would make them more liable for conference losses. In part that is what the fees are for. That is why the P5 conferences have GOR's in place, a departing team would forfeit future media contract revenue.

(05-21-2015 07:07 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  This is crazy. One day I'm convinced UAB football will be back, the next day I'm sure that UAB football is finished. I'm ready to know one way or the other already.

Try being in the middle of it.

(05-21-2015 08:53 PM)MUther Wrote:  If Ray Watts has the final say and is the one who determines whether UAB remains in CUSA for football (obviously if we kick them out for other sports we can't count those losses) and if CUSA's TV deal suffers from losing the Birmingham market for football, is Ray Watts then financially liable to CUSA for the loss of revenue? I think it would behoove CUSA to get two numbers from bidders. One with UAB football market and one without. It would then be nice to send him, personally, a bill for the difference.

Pulling football should be no different a breach of contract than moving the team to a different conference. And the TV revenue discrepancy liability, as we know, is already part of the contract that hangs over all the CUSA schools.

Sending the bill to him personally would force him to have to ask the University and BoT for funding to pay that debt and it would be a worthwhile jab, imo.

Maybe it's more like a legal marriage contract. You know, "Yeah, I said I'd stay with you forever no matter what and all that but I changed my mind 'cause I really didn't mean what I agreed to. No consequences."

Call it a "No-Fault Sports Commitment." In fact, if I were UAB, why not sue CUSA for alimony after they get rid of football to help replace the revenue they will lose that they've grown accustomed to. Works in family court every time. Plenty of legal precedents to cite.

Good lord how are all you UAB folks not hooked on Xanax and Valium now to survive this?

We had a president toy with the idea and the president of the senate vowed to gut the Jonesboro campus budget and pour it into the juco campus and make it a four year school and he backed off before it ever became public.