Started By
Message
re: FREE UAB
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:25 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:25 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
You're wasting your time with that ignorant shite stain. He knows what UAT did here was wrong, that's why he's so defensive about this issue. He's just "got too much Bama in him" to be honest about it.
I could care less about "this issue". You clowns have whined and moaned about poor UAB's football demise when Birmingham as a whole (or should I say "hole"?), did NOTHING for years to rectify the problem. Now, because people are tired of throwing good $$$ after bad, y'all are howling about not being treated fairly. You need to STFU, and find something CONSTRUCTIVE to do to help the school flourish.
0
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:25 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
What he said is actually quite true.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:26 am to jb4
It's Bama's money to do with as they like. Idk why Auburn is so upset at this.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:26 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
I don't think the majority of the people reacting in either direction know the details.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:27 am to Old Hellen Yeller
Uab had the stadium financing years ago through a combination of donor commitments and bonds. It was a done deal. The Bama BOT refused to vote on it because they knew it was a slam dunk for Uab and no brainer. It was a done deal until the BOT prevented it.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:28 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
$20M football program loss every year
That's not true. As a whole, the UAB AD receives $12.5M in out of pocket funding from the university. That is for all sports. Not just football [the AD also receives around 6 M from athletic donations and student fees earmarked for the AD]. How much that is for football? My guess is in the $3-5M range. Does the football program offer more than $3-5M in value to the university and the city? Does CUSA membership?
The amount of the subsidy is not changing under the new plan. Repeat: Watts' strategic plan does not change the amount of money UAB spends subsidizing athletics. They decided they wanted to shut it down, made up numbers for future costs, and declared that they could not afford the costs [that haven't happened and need not happen].
This post was edited on 12/6/14 at 11:31 am
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:29 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
You really seem to be a walking contradiction.
This post was edited on 12/6/14 at 11:29 am
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:29 am to imjustafatkid
It's sad for the UAB players and others involved with the program. I don't know the inner workings of this decision. I also, don't know how the program could have been saved unless UA continued to pour money into it.....UAB faculty, alumni, and students just seemed too apathetic about football for too long.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:29 am to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
It's Bama's money to do with as they like. Idk why Auburn is so upset at this.
Auburn fans, as a whole, have terrible little brother syndrome. It's exhausting.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:29 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Uab had the stadium financing years ago through a combination of donor commitments and bonds. It was a done deal. The Bama BOT refused to vote on it because they knew it was a slam dunk for Uab and no brainer. It was a done deal until the BOT prevented it.
Yes, we already know the Auburn version of the truth. I'm just calling it bullshite.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:30 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Uab had the stadium financing years ago through a combination of donor commitments and bonds.
This is not true.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:31 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
ETA: Doesn't stop people from going to the magic city classic. Or the bowl game every year.
Oh it definitely will stop sc fans from going if sc gets a bowl there. There might be as many fans at the bowl game as are at the uab home games after so's last trip to Birmingham. People still tell tales of how abysmal the area is.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:31 am to CapstoneGrad06
They made the report public. I don't think there's a whole lot ro debate really.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:33 am to bobsacamano
quote:
There might be as many fans at the bowl game as are at the uab home games after so's last trip to Birmingham. People still tell tales of how abysmal the area is.
Enough Birmingham residents would go to see an SEC team play that it would likely still have a decent showing.
40,000 people would be my bare minimum guess, but that's still more than UAB draws. Birmingham just doesn't support the team.
ETA: The night of the UAB "black out rally" to support football and attend the basketball game there was another protest across town about Mike Brown/police-on-black killings/whatever. Something actually relevant to Birmingham is going on downtown and people still don't care. It's not important to Birmingham's citizens.
This post was edited on 12/6/14 at 11:37 am
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:35 am to Old Hellen Yeller
Uab had the stadium financing years ago through a combination of donor commitments and bonds. It was a done deal. The Bama BOT refused to vote on it because they knew it was a slam dunk for Uab and no brainer. It was a done deal until the BOT prevented it.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:37 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
They were asking for over half the funding from the UA system...
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:37 am to Gradual_Stroke
The point is that the state and the city of Birmingham would be better off if it was not structured such that it is "Bama's money". The public good is being undermined because of bullshite politics and power struggles.
Why should the UA BOT be permitted to control a separate university with divergent interests? UAB isn't some satellite campus. It has 19,000 students, is the largest employer in the state, has higher revenues than the rest of the UA system combine. Why should the UA BOT be able to dictate what it does? UAB should be about looking out for UAB and Birmingham. Does anyone think that an independent UAB BOT would have made this decision?
Why should the UA BOT be permitted to control a separate university with divergent interests? UAB isn't some satellite campus. It has 19,000 students, is the largest employer in the state, has higher revenues than the rest of the UA system combine. Why should the UA BOT be able to dictate what it does? UAB should be about looking out for UAB and Birmingham. Does anyone think that an independent UAB BOT would have made this decision?
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:39 am to APIEE
How is UAB football helping the public good?
For that matter, how is UA football?
What a dumb argument.
An independent UAB wouldn't have a med school. It would be broke. The last thing UAB wants is to seperate from the UA system.
ETA: Your type is the worst. The "UAB supporter" who actually hasn't put any thought into UAB and just talks out of an orifice other than his mouth.
For that matter, how is UA football?
What a dumb argument.
An independent UAB wouldn't have a med school. It would be broke. The last thing UAB wants is to seperate from the UA system.
ETA: Your type is the worst. The "UAB supporter" who actually hasn't put any thought into UAB and just talks out of an orifice other than his mouth.
This post was edited on 12/6/14 at 11:41 am
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:40 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:As has been intimated numerous time, you are a LIAR...if you dispute this, then present links to substantiate your claim. If you don't, then...you're a liar....plain and simple.
Uab had the stadium financing years ago through a combination of donor commitments and bonds. It was a done deal. The Bama BOT refused to vote on it because they knew it was a slam dunk for Uab and no brainer. It was a done deal until the BOT prevented it.
Posted on 12/6/14 at 11:40 am to imjustafatkid
It stimulates the economy by drawing people downtown and spending money.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News