(08-01-2019 11:28 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 01:39 PM)Blazilla Wrote:  I just think it would make sense for the SEC to move their HQ's to Atlanta now.

You didn't give one good reason as to why the SEC should move their HQ from Birmingham - and that's what this post was about, you really couldn't care less where they move it to, you just want it out of Birmingham.

Sadly for you, the City obviously is happy with the SEC HQ arrangement. It leaders obviously believe the rent-free situation is good for the city, and that makes sense, as the SEC is a prestigious organization. Without the SEC in Birmingham, what would Birmingham have in the way of a national presence in college athletics?

Nothing.

Before I begin, I started this thread (JRSec reinstated my previous handle name I requested BlazerJoe to retire several years ago).

Now to my response, I know you're the resident chitstarter on this site but I will respond to you with complete professionalism. I presented four (4) good reasons as to why the SEC should move their HQs to Atlanta. But maybe those reasons wasn't salivating or tasty enough for your palate.

So I'll respond to the only question that you asked me and also answered for me, "Without the SEC in Birmingham, what would Birmingham have in the way of a national presence in college athletics?" My answer to that would be college football television ratings due to the presence of rabid Alabama and Auburn fans in the city. There use to be a greater SEC presence when the Iron Bowl and the SEC Football Championship Game was played in Birmingham. You and I know that is not the case anymore. The only other major SEC presence in Birmingham was the SEC Media Days held in Hoover which will now move to Atlanta next year.

It has become obvious that the SEC has shifted it focus from Birmingham to Atlanta which is completely understandable. So why not move the HQs to Atlanta? I know what the SEC HQs gains from keeping in B'ham but I'm not sure what Birmingham gains from having it here anymore. Like I stated earlier, the space could be used for something profitable financially instead of giving it away for one cent a year.

There will always be an SEC presence in Birmingham whether the HQs is here or not but you can't ignore that their presence has gotten smaller and smaller over the decades. It is what it is.

You have a great day Quo!

The city is still dominated by Alabama and Auburn fans. It has the highest saturation numbers of any Southern city on Saturday's in the Fall at 2:30 PM and no other city is as close. The SEC presence in Birmingham is not in question. Atlanta is a high dollar real estate area which focuses on the SEC in numbers during the CCG. Dallas will be the next city in which the SEC will want an event or a presence. These aren't accidents.

The reason Alabama and Auburn quit playing in Legion Field is because of the larger amount of money they make by playing at home. Auburn once played games in Montgomery and Columbus, Georgia annually, but not anymore. Jacksonville is one of the holdouts for the Florida / Georgia game. It's under pressure. The SEC has an estimated economic impact over its region of over 7 billion dollars as projected by the WSJ. No other conference comes close to this. By that they mean that the SEC generates 7 billion dollars worth of commerce for other businesses in the region just by its brands being there.

What the SEC will very carefully plan is how to expand their presence in terms of brand identification in every major city within its footprint. We are in New Orleans via the Sugar Bowl the same way we've been in Tampa/St.Pete and Nashville with bowl games.

The SEC is not going to leave Birmingham because it is the geographical center of the conference.

If you are concerned about utilization of space in downtown Birmingham I will refer you back to a study that was done for the UAB school of Medicine where one of the factors considered was how much more grant money and research space could be found by eliminating the 9,000 undergraduates and expanding into their space, which was also part of why eliminating the sports associated with UAB was being pondered. The state's taxpayers were supplementing well over 25% of the UAB athletic's budget for a football team that still only averages 30% capacity of the lower deck at Legion Field (think 20,000), a stadium which the City of Birmingham was not keeping up. The field was in disrepair and an injury risk to the players, the upper deck had essentially been condemned, and there were sanitation problems associated with water and sewer connections into the stadium.

The estimated impact of converting UAB completely into a Medical post graduate research facility and hospital was massive in terms of the revenue it would bring into Birmingham.

So what I find ironic is that the SEC office is being singled out as a facility that could yield more revenue when what could be generated by the SEC's office space is minuscule compared to the revenue that could be generated by using all of UAB's current space for Medical Research and Hospital expansion. There are two private undergraduate schools already in Birmingham and Auburn and Alabama are no more than hour to an hour and a half away, and Jacksonville State is even closer.

The taxpayers of Alabama would be better served for UAB to maximize its value as a research facility and for post graduate medical work, than to waste that space and money on 9,000 undergraduates who could easily go elsewhere. The spending on the football program is another 15 million a year that is wasted and that's a very conservative estimate.

UAB is a jewel for research in the state of Alabama. That needs to be maximized. Auburn and Alabama are massive (for this state) undergraduate facilities in a state where a sound 4 year state undergraduate is available to every high school grad in the state within 90 miles, or less, of where they may happen to be. Add in the privates and it is even less.

The furor over UAB's football program was largely due to a failing city government that wanted to keep state funding rolling into their bailiwick. It was bad policy then and bad policy now. The state's money however does need to flow into the UAB research facilities. I would think another 15 million or so a year poured into that would produce major dividends for all of us.

(08-01-2019 11:28 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 01:39 PM)Blazilla Wrote:  I just think it would make sense for the SEC to move their HQ's to Atlanta now.

You didn't give one good reason as to why the SEC should move their HQ from Birmingham - and that's what this post was about, you really couldn't care less where they move it to, you just want it out of Birmingham.

Sadly for you, the City obviously is happy with the SEC HQ arrangement. It leaders obviously believe the rent-free situation is good for the city, and that makes sense, as the SEC is a prestigious organization. Without the SEC in Birmingham, what would Birmingham have in the way of a national presence in college athletics?

Nothing.

Before I begin, I started this thread (JRSec reinstated my previous handle name I requested BlazerJoe to retire several years ago).

Now to my response, I know you're the resident chitstarter on this site but I will respond to you with complete professionalism. I presented four (4) good reasons as to why the SEC should move their HQs to Atlanta. But maybe those reasons wasn't salivating or tasty enough for your palate.

So I'll respond to the only question that you asked me and also answered for me, "Without the SEC in Birmingham, what would Birmingham have in the way of a national presence in college athletics?" My answer to that would be college football television ratings due to the presence of rabid Alabama and Auburn fans in the city. There use to be a greater SEC presence when the Iron Bowl and the SEC Football Championship Game was played in Birmingham. You and I know that is not the case anymore. The only other major SEC presence in Birmingham was the SEC Media Days held in Hoover which will now move to Atlanta next year.

It has become obvious that the SEC has shifted it focus from Birmingham to Atlanta which is completely understandable. So why not move the HQs to Atlanta? I know what the SEC HQs gains from keeping in B'ham but I'm not sure what Birmingham gains from having it here anymore. Like I stated earlier, the space could be used for something profitable financially instead of giving it away for one cent a year.

There will always be an SEC presence in Birmingham whether the HQs is here or not but you can't ignore that their presence has gotten smaller and smaller over the decades. It is what it is.

You have a great day Quo!

You presented zero good reasons. The reasons you listed were:

1. Bama football - gone
2. Auburn football - gone
3. SEC FB Championship Game - gone
4. SEC Media Days - gone

How on earth are any of those good reasons? What do HQ activities have to do with whether Alabama or Auburn play games there or whether the SEC title game is there or whether SEC media days are there? Nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing.

Which is probably why the people who are paid to think of things like where SEC HQ should be seem to be happy right where it is.

You show your true colors when you say:

"So why not move the HQs to Atlanta? I know what the SEC HQs gains from keeping in B'ham but I'm not sure what Birmingham gains from having it here anymore."

You concede that despite the SEC "shifting its focus" elsewhere, that the SEC "gains" from having its HQ in Birmingham. That answers your question about why they don't move to Atlanta, doesn't it? Obviously, despite your "four good reasons", really irrelevant reasons, the SEC still thinks it has more to gain with its HQ in Birmingham than Atlanta.

I can think of some actual good reasons for the SEC to stay in Birmingham compared to Atlanta: (1) Atlanta real estate prices are pricey, a lot pricier than $1 a year, LOL. (2) Symbolically, Birmingham is more centrally located in the SEC footprint than is Atlanta, which skews east. And (3), whereas Atlanta is a national city with many different interests, including a strong pro-sports interest, such that the SEC would be only one among many prominent sports institutions in town, in Birmingham, the SEC is a large fish in a much smaller pond, particularly in a sports sense. As you mention, ratings for SEC football are through the roof in Birmingham, even moreso than Atlanta, which indicates very strong local interest in the SEC. The SEC can therefore expect that Birmingham city officials are likely to be much more attentive to any concerns they have compared to ATL officials, who have a lot of big fish to cater to.

You then question what the city gains from it. But the city seems to be happy with SEC HQ in Birmingham. Given that the city collects basically no rent, I guess they value the goodwill of having the HQ of the powerful SEC in their city footprint. And given the very strong interest in Alabama and Auburn football in Birmingham, I bet a lot of the city's citizens like it that way.

Overall, you seem to be whining about a non-issue.





SJ + MS 8/1/79
40 years, RIP

Me starting this thread has nothing to do with UAB at all. You guys sometimes read way too much into something. It is just a simple observation that the presence of the SEC in Birmingham has dwindled over the years. I don't know about you but I was kinda shocked that Hoover could not even keep the SEC Media Days which was the last big SEC presence in this state. I don't include the SEC Baseball Tourney because while operated outstandingly it doesn't compared to the Football or Basketball Championships.

I understand why the Iron Bowl and Football CG isn't played in Birmingham. But why did SEC Media Days had to move to Atlanta? Again just an observation that really isn't that big of a deal and absolutely nothing to do with UAB.

(08-01-2019 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 11:28 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 01:39 PM)Blazilla Wrote:  I just think it would make sense for the SEC to move their HQ's to Atlanta now.

You didn't give one good reason as to why the SEC should move their HQ from Birmingham - and that's what this post was about, you really couldn't care less where they move it to, you just want it out of Birmingham.

Sadly for you, the City obviously is happy with the SEC HQ arrangement. It leaders obviously believe the rent-free situation is good for the city, and that makes sense, as the SEC is a prestigious organization. Without the SEC in Birmingham, what would Birmingham have in the way of a national presence in college athletics?

Nothing.

Before I begin, I started this thread (JRSec reinstated my previous handle name I requested BlazerJoe to retire several years ago).

Now to my response, I know you're the resident chitstarter on this site but I will respond to you with complete professionalism. I presented four (4) good reasons as to why the SEC should move their HQs to Atlanta. But maybe those reasons wasn't salivating or tasty enough for your palate.

So I'll respond to the only question that you asked me and also answered for me, "Without the SEC in Birmingham, what would Birmingham have in the way of a national presence in college athletics?" My answer to that would be college football television ratings due to the presence of rabid Alabama and Auburn fans in the city. There use to be a greater SEC presence when the Iron Bowl and the SEC Football Championship Game was played in Birmingham. You and I know that is not the case anymore. The only other major SEC presence in Birmingham was the SEC Media Days held in Hoover which will now move to Atlanta next year.

It has become obvious that the SEC has shifted it focus from Birmingham to Atlanta which is completely understandable. So why not move the HQs to Atlanta? I know what the SEC HQs gains from keeping in B'ham but I'm not sure what Birmingham gains from having it here anymore. Like I stated earlier, the space could be used for something profitable financially instead of giving it away for one cent a year.

There will always be an SEC presence in Birmingham whether the HQs is here or not but you can't ignore that their presence has gotten smaller and smaller over the decades. It is what it is.

You have a great day Quo!

You presented zero good reasons. The reasons you listed were:

1. Bama football - gone
2. Auburn football - gone
3. SEC FB Championship Game - gone
4. SEC Media Days - gone

How on earth are any of those good reasons? What do HQ activities have to do with whether Alabama or Auburn play games there or whether the SEC title game is there or whether SEC media days are there? Nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing.

Which is probably why the people who are paid to think of things like where SEC HQ should be seem to be happy right where it is.

You show your true colors when you say:

"So why not move the HQs to Atlanta? I know what the SEC HQs gains from keeping in B'ham but I'm not sure what Birmingham gains from having it here anymore."

You concede that despite the SEC "shifting its focus" elsewhere, that the SEC "gains" from having its HQ in Birmingham. That answers your question about why they don't move to Atlanta, doesn't it? Obviously, despite your "four good reasons", really irrelevant reasons, the SEC still thinks it has more to gain with its HQ in Birmingham than Atlanta.

I can think of some actual good reasons for the SEC to stay in Birmingham compared to Atlanta: (1) Atlanta real estate prices are pricey, a lot pricier than $1 a year, LOL. (2) Symbolically, Birmingham is more centrally located in the SEC footprint than is Atlanta, which skews east. And (3), whereas Atlanta is a national city with many different interests, including a strong pro-sports interest, such that the SEC would be only one among many prominent sports institutions in town, in Birmingham, the SEC is a large fish in a much smaller pond, particularly in a sports sense. As you mention, ratings for SEC football are through the roof in Birmingham, even moreso than Atlanta, which indicates very strong local interest in the SEC. The SEC can therefore expect that Birmingham city officials are likely to be much more attentive to any concerns they have compared to ATL officials, who have a lot of big fish to cater to.

You then question what the city gains from it. But the city seems to be happy with SEC HQ in Birmingham. Given that the city collects basically no rent, I guess they value the goodwill of having the HQ of the powerful SEC in their city footprint. And given the very strong interest in Alabama and Auburn football in Birmingham, I bet a lot of the city's citizens like it that way.

Overall, you seem to be whining about a non-issue.





SJ + MS 8/1/79
40 years, RIP

Why do you feel the need to be confrontational? You don't like that I said it's time for the SEC HQs to move to Atlanta? Does it affect you or your family in some kind of way? Or is it because it's a long summer and you're bored and just need something to be snippy about? Take a shot of Jack Daniels Tennessee Honey and.....

(07-31-2019 04:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What is the benefit SEC gains by moving? A move costs money and disrupts operations and also means you have to deal with staff relocating as well as replacing the staff that chooses to not relocate.

Atlanta is easier to fly to, Nashville probably easier than Birmingham but why not go to DFW since you get easy travel, no income tax and if you want you can easily set up face-to-face meetings at the last minute with B12, AAC, CUSA, and Southland.

You're starting to see more and more industries consolidate in a central location like this. Urban researchers tell us it's because people learn how to become better at their job if they have neighbors & friends who work in the same field.

Nonprofits have clustered in Indianapolis.

Music has clustered in Nashville.

Furniture making has clustered in central North Carolina.

The logistics industry has clustered in Cincinnati.

Internet companies have clustered in Seattle and Silicon Valley.

Biotech has clustered in Boston and San Francisco.

The golf course management industry has clustered in San Diego.

The list goes on and on. It's happening in nearly every industry. The cities with top expertise in an industry are winning, and cities that used to be secondary players are losing out entirely.

(08-01-2019 12:30 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 11:28 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 01:39 PM)Blazilla Wrote:  I just think it would make sense for the SEC to move their HQ's to Atlanta now.

You didn't give one good reason as to why the SEC should move their HQ from Birmingham - and that's what this post was about, you really couldn't care less where they move it to, you just want it out of Birmingham.

Sadly for you, the City obviously is happy with the SEC HQ arrangement. It leaders obviously believe the rent-free situation is good for the city, and that makes sense, as the SEC is a prestigious organization. Without the SEC in Birmingham, what would Birmingham have in the way of a national presence in college athletics?

Nothing.

Before I begin, I started this thread (JRSec reinstated my previous handle name I requested BlazerJoe to retire several years ago).

Now to my response, I know you're the resident chitstarter on this site but I will respond to you with complete professionalism. I presented four (4) good reasons as to why the SEC should move their HQs to Atlanta. But maybe those reasons wasn't salivating or tasty enough for your palate.

So I'll respond to the only question that you asked me and also answered for me, "Without the SEC in Birmingham, what would Birmingham have in the way of a national presence in college athletics?" My answer to that would be college football television ratings due to the presence of rabid Alabama and Auburn fans in the city. There use to be a greater SEC presence when the Iron Bowl and the SEC Football Championship Game was played in Birmingham. You and I know that is not the case anymore. The only other major SEC presence in Birmingham was the SEC Media Days held in Hoover which will now move to Atlanta next year.

It has become obvious that the SEC has shifted it focus from Birmingham to Atlanta which is completely understandable. So why not move the HQs to Atlanta? I know what the SEC HQs gains from keeping in B'ham but I'm not sure what Birmingham gains from having it here anymore. Like I stated earlier, the space could be used for something profitable financially instead of giving it away for one cent a year.

There will always be an SEC presence in Birmingham whether the HQs is here or not but you can't ignore that their presence has gotten smaller and smaller over the decades. It is what it is.

You have a great day Quo!

You presented zero good reasons. The reasons you listed were:

1. Bama football - gone
2. Auburn football - gone
3. SEC FB Championship Game - gone
4. SEC Media Days - gone

How on earth are any of those good reasons? What do HQ activities have to do with whether Alabama or Auburn play games there or whether the SEC title game is there or whether SEC media days are there? Nothing, nothing, nothing, and nothing.

Which is probably why the people who are paid to think of things like where SEC HQ should be seem to be happy right where it is.

You show your true colors when you say:

"So why not move the HQs to Atlanta? I know what the SEC HQs gains from keeping in B'ham but I'm not sure what Birmingham gains from having it here anymore."

You concede that despite the SEC "shifting its focus" elsewhere, that the SEC "gains" from having its HQ in Birmingham. That answers your question about why they don't move to Atlanta, doesn't it? Obviously, despite your "four good reasons", really irrelevant reasons, the SEC still thinks it has more to gain with its HQ in Birmingham than Atlanta.

I can think of some actual good reasons for the SEC to stay in Birmingham compared to Atlanta: (1) Atlanta real estate prices are pricey, a lot pricier than $1 a year, LOL. (2) Symbolically, Birmingham is more centrally located in the SEC footprint than is Atlanta, which skews east. And (3), whereas Atlanta is a national city with many different interests, including a strong pro-sports interest, such that the SEC would be only one among many prominent sports institutions in town, in Birmingham, the SEC is a large fish in a much smaller pond, particularly in a sports sense. As you mention, ratings for SEC football are through the roof in Birmingham, even moreso than Atlanta, which indicates very strong local interest in the SEC. The SEC can therefore expect that Birmingham city officials are likely to be much more attentive to any concerns they have compared to ATL officials, who have a lot of big fish to cater to.

You then question what the city gains from it. But the city seems to be happy with SEC HQ in Birmingham. Given that the city collects basically no rent, I guess they value the goodwill of having the HQ of the powerful SEC in their city footprint. And given the very strong interest in Alabama and Auburn football in Birmingham, I bet a lot of the city's citizens like it that way.

Overall, you seem to be whining about a non-issue.





SJ + MS 8/1/79
40 years, RIP

Why do you feel the need to be confrontational?

This, coming from the clown who called me the "resident chitstarter" on this site?



Seems like your panties have wadded up because I ably dismissed your poorly supported proposal.

If you don't like your ideas being challenged, post them to an echo-chamber, which this forum ain't.

(08-01-2019 12:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 04:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What is the benefit SEC gains by moving? A move costs money and disrupts operations and also means you have to deal with staff relocating as well as replacing the staff that chooses to not relocate.

Atlanta is easier to fly to, Nashville probably easier than Birmingham but why not go to DFW since you get easy travel, no income tax and if you want you can easily set up face-to-face meetings at the last minute with B12, AAC, CUSA, and Southland.

You're starting to see more and more industries consolidate in a central location like this. Urban researchers tell us it's because people learn how to become better at their job if they have neighbors & friends who work in the same field.

That's actually one reason among several. Here's a link to a classic article on the topic:

https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the...ompetition

(08-01-2019 12:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-31-2019 04:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What is the benefit SEC gains by moving? A move costs money and disrupts operations and also means you have to deal with staff relocating as well as replacing the staff that chooses to not relocate.

Atlanta is easier to fly to, Nashville probably easier than Birmingham but why not go to DFW since you get easy travel, no income tax and if you want you can easily set up face-to-face meetings at the last minute with B12, AAC, CUSA, and Southland.

You're starting to see more and more industries consolidate in a central location like this. Urban researchers tell us it's because people learn how to become better at their job if they have neighbors & friends who work in the same field.

Nonprofits have clustered in Indianapolis.

Music has clustered in Nashville.

Furniture making has clustered in central North Carolina.

The logistics industry has clustered in Cincinnati.

Internet companies have clustered in Seattle and Silicon Valley.

Biotech has clustered in Boston and San Francisco.

The golf course management industry has clustered in San Diego.

The list goes on and on. It's happening in nearly every industry. The cities with top expertise in an industry are winning, and cities that used to be secondary players are losing out entirely.

Ha, let's see, the music is crappier and lacks originality, furniture tears up in 2 foggy mornings and that's if you don't rip your hand or leg on poorly applied staples which have no place in real furniture, the tech companies are destroying local culture and social groups by confining them to a medium in which they only profit and where their agenda's rule, and non profits manage to keep 95% of their proceeds for themselves. Yeah buddy, they sure as hell are learning from one another and it stinks for the consumer and those in need. The military had a term for this. They called it a cluster *&^%!

Yet another example of how corporate group think is screwing up the nation.

Why does the location matter? Fans don't need to go there. Schools don't need to go there. Conference-wide meetings are always held at some resort location. If conference execs can get reasonable travel arrangements (price and time) Birmingham is just as functional as Atlanta and quite a bit less expensive.

My off-topic SEC HQ story.

My wife worked in tourism field and was going to the South Central Motorcoach Convention to be held in Birmingham and I tagged along as did a much older lady from another organization. The older lady was lucky to be alive because she gave my wife driving directions to Birmingham from her home, directions that took two hours longer simply because the old lady refused to have us go via Memphis or cross the Mississippi at Helena. I could get us to Birmingham from either but not from her house to the river without GPS.

So we take two extra hours riding on the wagon train trail and finally arrive to Birmingham and get stuck for another because of a wreck. Finally looking for our hotel, the old lady proclaims she sees it and points out they have banners for Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and I point out they also have one for Vanderbilt and Auburn because that's not the hotel, it's SEC HQ.

Hotel was very nearby and finally found it and luckily the hotel bar was open for my dire medical need at that point.

(08-01-2019 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This, coming from the clown who called me the "resident chitstarter" on this site?



Seems like your panties have wadded up because I ably dismissed your poorly supported proposal.

If you don't like your ideas being challenged, post them to an echo-chamber, which this forum ain't.

U are a chitstarter.....that's your schtick. Your first response to my post was you trying to disrespect me. I see your 776 or whatever reputation points. But how about you try not reading into what I posted and respond with some decency. Then you won't be called a chitstarter even though that probably turns you on.

You people are ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room...

If we had a 747 then it's not going to matter what the rent is or how easy it is to travel to the HQ. The HQ comes to YOU!

That's how you beat the real estate market. That's how you play 5th dimensional chess.

It's all right here in Corporate Jet Investor:

Buyer's and Investors Guide

(08-01-2019 02:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You people are ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room...

If we had a 747 then it's not going to matter what the rent is or how easy it is to travel to the HQ. The HQ comes to YOU!

That's how you beat the real estate market. That's how you play 5th dimensional chess.

It's all right here in Corporate Jet Investor:

Buyer's and Investors Guide

(08-01-2019 01:44 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This, coming from the clown who called me the "resident chitstarter" on this site?



Seems like your panties have wadded up because I ably dismissed your poorly supported proposal.

If you don't like your ideas being challenged, post them to an echo-chamber, which this forum ain't.

U are a chitstarter.....that's your schtick. Your first response to my post was you trying to disrespect me. I see your 776 or whatever reputation points. But how about you try not reading into what I posted and respond with some decency. Then you won't be called a chitstarter even though that probably turns you on.

You are a hypocrite for complaining about 'confrontational' when you resorted to silly name calling.

Get over your widdle baby hurt feelings and address the points.

(08-01-2019 04:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 01:44 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(08-01-2019 12:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This, coming from the clown who called me the "resident chitstarter" on this site?



Seems like your panties have wadded up because I ably dismissed your poorly supported proposal.

If you don't like your ideas being challenged, post them to an echo-chamber, which this forum ain't.

U are a chitstarter.....that's your schtick. Your first response to my post was you trying to disrespect me. I see your 776 or whatever reputation points. But how about you try not reading into what I posted and respond with some decency. Then you won't be called a chitstarter even though that probably turns you on.

You are a hypocrite for complaining about 'confrontational' when you resorted to silly name calling.

Get over your widdle baby hurt feelings and address the points.

Points have been addressed resident chitstarter .

Carry on sir!

Are you looking for a new central Capital for the Confederacy or a place for the SEC HQ?

If the SEC defacto represents the current "South" meaning the white Scots-Irish/Germans from along the Southern Blue Ridge then the geographic and cultural center is probably Nashville. If you were building a new Confederacy today it would tend to follow the "sweet tea/Moonpie" consumption lines meaning that much of southside Mizzou, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio are now culturally southern. Northern Va, the Triangle and NE NC remain Tideland Atlantic.

If I never had to fly into Atlanta again it would be too soon. For a lot of reasons that don't discuss well, Birmingham is ****** up.

You would want to avoid the Mississippi River flood plain and the New Madrid major destruction zone so that takes our NO/Baton Rouge/Memphis/St. Louis.

You don't want Charlotte because that's too near the edge. You don't want Texas.

That really leaves Atlanta and Nashville, and Birmingham.

If the SEC is worried that the politics of the host state will hurt them, they can get burned on that in Tenn, Georgia, and Alabama. That happened to the ACC which was unthinkable 10 year ago.

(08-01-2019 04:42 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  Points have been addressed ...

Nope, not these:

I can think of some actual good reasons for the SEC to stay in Birmingham compared to Atlanta:

(1) Atlanta real estate prices are pricey, a lot pricier than $1 a year. Why pay that, on top of the moving and transition expenses?

(2) Symbolically, Birmingham is more centrally located in the SEC footprint than is Atlanta, which skews east.

(3), whereas Atlanta is a national city with many different interests, including a strong pro-sports interest, such that the SEC would be only one among many prominent sports institutions in town, in Birmingham, the SEC is a large fish in a much smaller pond, particularly in a sports sense. As you mention, ratings for SEC football are through the roof in Birmingham, even moreso than Atlanta, which indicates very strong local interest in the SEC. The SEC can therefore expect that Birmingham city officials are likely to be much more attentive to any concerns they have compared to ATL officials, who have a lot of big fish to cater to.

(4) You also question what the city gains from it. But that's irrelevant to the issue of the SEC moving to Atlanta. If the city doesn't benefit from SEC HQ being in Birmingham, they would just want them out, period, and wouldn't care where they went.

But the city seems to be happy with SEC HQ in Birmingham. I guess they value the goodwill and prestige of having the HQ of the powerful SEC in their city footprint. And given the very strong interest in Alabama and Auburn football in Birmingham, I bet a lot of the city's citizens like it that way.

In short, you don't seem to have come up with a compelling case.

(08-01-2019 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The estimated impact of converting UAB completely into a Medical post graduate research facility and hospital was massive in terms of the revenue it would bring into Birmingham.

So what I find ironic is that the SEC office is being singled out as a facility that could yield more revenue when what could be generated by the SEC's office space is minuscule compared to the revenue that could be generated by using all of UAB's current space for Medical Research and Hospital expansion. There are two private undergraduate schools already in Birmingham and Auburn and Alabama are no more than hour to an hour and a half away, and Jacksonville State is even closer.

Excellent point. Converting UAB to a research facility would probably generate a lot more direct revenue (via government grants) and indirect revenue (as a magnet for private sector facilities in the medical domain) for Birmgham than anything related to SEC HQ could be. And shedding its athletics would save taxpayers a lot of money to boot, all without depriving undergraduate students in the area access to a lot of good choices nearby.