(09-14-2023 11:43 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:29 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 12:27 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  No - it would not have. The $$ went to facilities that are for the city/local government-owned facilities - i.e., the Titans stadium, the Grizzlies/FEF, and the Liberty Bowl.

An OCS would be solely owned by a state-owned university. UT/Neyland, Vandy's stadium, and UT-Chatt would not qualify for any of these funds.

Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

Again, false. The funding has to be spent certain ways -
Even Nashville is getting ownership BACK of the Titans' stadium with this deal:

"The deal returns control of 66 acres, including the current site of Nissan Stadium, to Nashville."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3629...um-funding

All of the facilities receiving funding from this are owned by the cities they are in - they are NOT owned by universities. Do you not think that if this were available to universities UT wouldn't have been all over it since they are currently renovating Neyland?

The State has paid for university facilities before. Thompson Boling Arena was partially funded by the state for example. It is fully owned and operated by UT however. From the Arena's website:

The funding package for the facility provided that UT pay $13 million; Knox County, $10 million (through an increase in the amusement tax); and the State of Tennessee, $7 million.

Correct, but as someone else said, this money in particular is a part of an infrastructure package that is earmarked for publicly owned locations.

Of course any college is welcome to ask for whatever funds from the state any time they like, but UofM (or UT, or MTSU, etc.) weren't going to get any of these particular funds.

State money is state money. The right political card playing can get any of it allocated to anything. I concede that nobody from the U of M was able to play the right cards, but that is a different problem. It's always been the reason why the Tigers don't have their own facilities. The people with the cards have more control over the pork if they can run it through the city. Years and decades of building those 'relationships' within the city power structure.

(09-14-2023 05:20 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 11:43 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:29 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:29 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Had the school been lobbying for the funds for an OCS, then they would have been in position to ask for them. They didn’t & they weren’t.

The city was appropriated the money solely as a tit-for-tat with Nashville; but the legislature wouldn’t have given a damn whether that money went for an OCS or for yet another Liberty Bowl make over… all they cared about was the appearance of an equitable investment in each city.

Again, false. The funding has to be spent certain ways -
Even Nashville is getting ownership BACK of the Titans' stadium with this deal:

"The deal returns control of 66 acres, including the current site of Nissan Stadium, to Nashville."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3629...um-funding

All of the facilities receiving funding from this are owned by the cities they are in - they are NOT owned by universities. Do you not think that if this were available to universities UT wouldn't have been all over it since they are currently renovating Neyland?

The State has paid for university facilities before. Thompson Boling Arena was partially funded by the state for example. It is fully owned and operated by UT however. From the Arena's website:

The funding package for the facility provided that UT pay $13 million; Knox County, $10 million (through an increase in the amusement tax); and the State of Tennessee, $7 million.

Correct, but as someone else said, this money in particular is a part of an infrastructure package that is earmarked for publicly owned locations.

Of course any college is welcome to ask for whatever funds from the state any time they like, but UofM (or UT, or MTSU, etc.) weren't going to get any of these particular funds.

State money is state money. The right political card playing can get any of it allocated to anything. I concede that nobody from the U of M was able to play the right cards, but that is a different problem. It's always been the reason why the Tigers don't have their own facilities. The people with the cards have more control over the pork if they can run it through the city. Years and decades of building those 'relationships' within the city power structure.

No, it can't. This is part of a federal infrastructure package directly tied to publicly owned structures. The state can't just decide to put it into other hands. It doesn't work that way.
While I agree UofM has definitely mis-played things for YEARS, not one cent of this money could have gone to them directly even if they had played every card correctly.

(09-15-2023 09:36 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 05:20 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 11:43 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:29 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Again, false. The funding has to be spent certain ways -
Even Nashville is getting ownership BACK of the Titans' stadium with this deal:

"The deal returns control of 66 acres, including the current site of Nissan Stadium, to Nashville."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3629...um-funding

All of the facilities receiving funding from this are owned by the cities they are in - they are NOT owned by universities. Do you not think that if this were available to universities UT wouldn't have been all over it since they are currently renovating Neyland?

The State has paid for university facilities before. Thompson Boling Arena was partially funded by the state for example. It is fully owned and operated by UT however. From the Arena's website:

The funding package for the facility provided that UT pay $13 million; Knox County, $10 million (through an increase in the amusement tax); and the State of Tennessee, $7 million.

Correct, but as someone else said, this money in particular is a part of an infrastructure package that is earmarked for publicly owned locations.

Of course any college is welcome to ask for whatever funds from the state any time they like, but UofM (or UT, or MTSU, etc.) weren't going to get any of these particular funds.

State money is state money. The right political card playing can get any of it allocated to anything. I concede that nobody from the U of M was able to play the right cards, but that is a different problem. It's always been the reason why the Tigers don't have their own facilities. The people with the cards have more control over the pork if they can run it through the city. Years and decades of building those 'relationships' within the city power structure.

No, it can't. This is part of a federal infrastructure package directly tied to publicly owned structures. The state can't just decide to put it into other hands. It doesn't work that way.
While I agree UofM has definitely mis-played things for YEARS, not one cent of this money could have gone to them directly even if they had played every card correctly.

The money isn’t going to the school. The school doesn’t own either the LB or the forum.

(09-15-2023 09:36 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 05:20 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 11:43 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:29 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Again, false. The funding has to be spent certain ways -
Even Nashville is getting ownership BACK of the Titans' stadium with this deal:

"The deal returns control of 66 acres, including the current site of Nissan Stadium, to Nashville."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3629...um-funding

All of the facilities receiving funding from this are owned by the cities they are in - they are NOT owned by universities. Do you not think that if this were available to universities UT wouldn't have been all over it since they are currently renovating Neyland?

The State has paid for university facilities before. Thompson Boling Arena was partially funded by the state for example. It is fully owned and operated by UT however. From the Arena's website:

The funding package for the facility provided that UT pay $13 million; Knox County, $10 million (through an increase in the amusement tax); and the State of Tennessee, $7 million.

Correct, but as someone else said, this money in particular is a part of an infrastructure package that is earmarked for publicly owned locations.

Of course any college is welcome to ask for whatever funds from the state any time they like, but UofM (or UT, or MTSU, etc.) weren't going to get any of these particular funds.

State money is state money. The right political card playing can get any of it allocated to anything. I concede that nobody from the U of M was able to play the right cards, but that is a different problem. It's always been the reason why the Tigers don't have their own facilities. The people with the cards have more control over the pork if they can run it through the city. Years and decades of building those 'relationships' within the city power structure.

No, it can't. This is part of a federal infrastructure package directly tied to publicly owned structures. The state can't just decide to put it into other hands. It doesn't work that way.
While I agree UofM has definitely mis-played things for YEARS, not one cent of this money could have gone to them directly even if they had played every card correctly.

You're so patient, tigergreen. You have said this one overriding fact over and over, and as far as I can tell, no one disputes it.

How is an OCS at a publicly owned state university not a publicly owned structure?

(09-15-2023 10:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  How is an OCS at a publicly owned state university not publicly owned?

Is that a quote from Spock or Aristotle? Seems quite logical.

(09-15-2023 10:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  How is an OCS at a publicly owned state university not a publicly owned structure?

The University of Memphis is not owned by the city of Memphis. An OCS would be owned/managed/run by the UofM, NOT the city or the state of TN (regardless of whether we are a public institution or not).

The new titans' stadium has had ownership transferred to the city of Nashville to get this money. The other stadiums in Chatt that are getting funds are owned by the city. It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse about this.

(09-15-2023 09:41 AM)2021 Tiger Football!! Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 09:36 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 05:20 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 11:43 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:29 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  The State has paid for university facilities before. Thompson Boling Arena was partially funded by the state for example. It is fully owned and operated by UT however. From the Arena's website:

The funding package for the facility provided that UT pay $13 million; Knox County, $10 million (through an increase in the amusement tax); and the State of Tennessee, $7 million.

Correct, but as someone else said, this money in particular is a part of an infrastructure package that is earmarked for publicly owned locations.

Of course any college is welcome to ask for whatever funds from the state any time they like, but UofM (or UT, or MTSU, etc.) weren't going to get any of these particular funds.

State money is state money. The right political card playing can get any of it allocated to anything. I concede that nobody from the U of M was able to play the right cards, but that is a different problem. It's always been the reason why the Tigers don't have their own facilities. The people with the cards have more control over the pork if they can run it through the city. Years and decades of building those 'relationships' within the city power structure.

No, it can't. This is part of a federal infrastructure package directly tied to publicly owned structures. The state can't just decide to put it into other hands. It doesn't work that way.
While I agree UofM has definitely mis-played things for YEARS, not one cent of this money could have gone to them directly even if they had played every card correctly.

The money isn’t going to the school. The school doesn’t own either the LB or the forum.

Correct.

(09-15-2023 01:21 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 09:41 AM)2021 Tiger Football!! Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 09:36 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 05:20 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 11:43 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  Correct, but as someone else said, this money in particular is a part of an infrastructure package that is earmarked for publicly owned locations.

Of course any college is welcome to ask for whatever funds from the state any time they like, but UofM (or UT, or MTSU, etc.) weren't going to get any of these particular funds.

State money is state money. The right political card playing can get any of it allocated to anything. I concede that nobody from the U of M was able to play the right cards, but that is a different problem. It's always been the reason why the Tigers don't have their own facilities. The people with the cards have more control over the pork if they can run it through the city. Years and decades of building those 'relationships' within the city power structure.

No, it can't. This is part of a federal infrastructure package directly tied to publicly owned structures. The state can't just decide to put it into other hands. It doesn't work that way.
While I agree UofM has definitely mis-played things for YEARS, not one cent of this money could have gone to them directly even if they had played every card correctly.

The money isn’t going to the school. The school doesn’t own either the LB or the forum.

Correct.

Some people don’t get it and never will. We all know the 3 or 4 on here that don’t

(09-15-2023 09:36 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 05:20 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-14-2023 11:43 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 09:29 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:52 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  Again, false. The funding has to be spent certain ways -
Even Nashville is getting ownership BACK of the Titans' stadium with this deal:

"The deal returns control of 66 acres, including the current site of Nissan Stadium, to Nashville."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/3629...um-funding

All of the facilities receiving funding from this are owned by the cities they are in - they are NOT owned by universities. Do you not think that if this were available to universities UT wouldn't have been all over it since they are currently renovating Neyland?

The State has paid for university facilities before. Thompson Boling Arena was partially funded by the state for example. It is fully owned and operated by UT however. From the Arena's website:

The funding package for the facility provided that UT pay $13 million; Knox County, $10 million (through an increase in the amusement tax); and the State of Tennessee, $7 million.

Correct, but as someone else said, this money in particular is a part of an infrastructure package that is earmarked for publicly owned locations.

Of course any college is welcome to ask for whatever funds from the state any time they like, but UofM (or UT, or MTSU, etc.) weren't going to get any of these particular funds.

State money is state money. The right political card playing can get any of it allocated to anything. I concede that nobody from the U of M was able to play the right cards, but that is a different problem. It's always been the reason why the Tigers don't have their own facilities. The people with the cards have more control over the pork if they can run it through the city. Years and decades of building those 'relationships' within the city power structure.

No, it can't. This is part of a federal infrastructure package directly tied to publicly owned structures. The state can't just decide to put it into other hands. It doesn't work that way.
While I agree UofM has definitely mis-played things for YEARS, not one cent of this money could have gone to them directly even if they had played every card correctly.

Missing my point. The State can fund anything they want. They have multiple sources with which to fund. This grant or tax revenues. No one at the UM has the cards to play so we got the shaft. Alway have, so nothing new there.

As far as federal infrastructure grants, I've worked on plenty of them. The public agencies that are eligible to receive them through the State as a pass through can use them to fund other public agencies that are not eligible to receive them directly. The UM would have to be added as a subrecipient. The City would have to be willing to do that though. It would involve giving up a set amount of the grant to the subrecipient.

In this case they bundled all the needs together to get the biggest allocation possible. Then they split it up. Easy way to make sure their primary concern (the Grizzlies) got everything they wanted. The Liberty Bowl will get some paint with what is left.

(09-15-2023 01:18 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 10:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  How is an OCS at a publicly owned state university not a publicly owned structure?

The University of Memphis is not owned by the city of Memphis. An OCS would be owned/managed/run by the UofM, NOT the city or the state of TN (regardless of whether we are a public institution or not).

The new titans' stadium has had ownership transferred to the city of Nashville to get this money. The other stadiums in Chatt that are getting funds are owned by the city. It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse about this.

The university is an arm of the state government. Doesn’t get much more public than that. I haven’t seen it stated anywhere that the state can’t fund state owned facilities with whatever pot of money this is coming from.

Has anyone mentioned in this thread that our university has NEVER in it's history placed an OCS or an OCA in the state-required master plan that each university must prepare & update periodically for capital funding? That would be the first logical step in any communication or lobbying campaign for the university to begin to gather state financial support for such facilities - and to actually demonstrate that the university desires such facilities.

Further confounding is thar there has never been a publicized plan for the university to build such facilities or solicit donations from university supporters for such facilities. And these facts are very disappointing.

(09-17-2023 04:58 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Has anyone mentioned in this thread that our university has NEVER in it's history placed an OCS or an OCA in the state-required master plan that each university must prepare & update periodically for capital finding? That would be the first logical step in any communication or lobbying campaign for the university to begin to gather state financial support for such facilities - and to actually demonstrate that the university desires such facilities.

Further confounding is thar there has never been a publicized plan for the university to build such facilities or solicit donations from university supporters for such facilities. And these facts are very disappointing.

spot on.

(09-16-2023 09:27 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 01:18 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-15-2023 10:21 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  How is an OCS at a publicly owned state university not a publicly owned structure?

The University of Memphis is not owned by the city of Memphis. An OCS would be owned/managed/run by the UofM, NOT the city or the state of TN (regardless of whether we are a public institution or not).

The new titans' stadium has had ownership transferred to the city of Nashville to get this money. The other stadiums in Chatt that are getting funds are owned by the city. It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse about this.

The university is an arm of the state government. Doesn’t get much more public than that. I haven’t seen it stated anywhere that the state can’t fund state owned facilities with whatever pot of money this is coming from.

I haven’t seen it either. It certainly seems odd that state money could be allocated towards municipal stadiums benefiting privately owned professional teams & their ownership group, yet those same state funds could not go towards a state university’s stadium effort.

Again, my belief is the school has no desire for an OCS yet university leadership does not want to be held accountable if that decision is one that keeps them from being included in future expansion.