In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 641
Online now 209 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Thanks for the confirmation, Matt. I was going off of the Committee Report, which is either wrong or an incorrect draft saved on the system.
Hate to hear it, but now I'm curious as to why this document accurately reflects most of the bonding and improvements that have been reported publicly (Rupp, soccer, etc), but inaccurately reflects the bonding approval specifically for football.
Listen to Barnhart on the radio on Kentucky Sports Radio this morning. he explains EXACTLY what I said earlier in this post.
I don't listen to KSR for any reason, ever. I'll take a pass this time as well.
You seem to have an overwhelming need to be "right" about this, despite the fact that I qualified everything I've said in this thread concerning the committee report.
You are 100% correct. Optimus-Blue was hearing what he wanted to hear.
FACT: UK does not have it's own bonding capacity and the STATE LEGISLATURE won't allow them to have it. We are the ONLY team in the SEC that has to deal with this burden.
FACT: The fat cat donors aren't helping UK out in this capacity. They are willing to donate all the money we ever request for basketball but that's it. Their pens are missing when it comes to football.
I agree 100% the Pens are lacking for football, Look who is asking for football Barnhart and Crew, I wouldnt give UK money right now for football, CAL is smart enough to do things outside of UK.
This post was edited by OptimusBlue5716 2 years ago
Ok. You don't want to ear facts straight from the ad's. I can understand you not wanting to believe me even though i cited a legislator telling me specifically that the money wasn't there. But to dismiss the athletic director is funny.
It had nothing to do with wanting to believe you or not, you made incorrect statements about the Conference Committee Report (the zeros to the left mean it has been zeroed, the insertion of the Report, the Rupp Arena funding, etc) and followed it up with a reference to a legislator's statement.
What you were saying the legislator told you was simply not supported by the Conference Committee Report which, to this day, still shows $75 million in bonding capacity approved. I said numerous times that every single statement I made was based on that document, and that I had no basis for knowing the accuracy of the document, other than the fact that it was posted on the Legislative Research Committee's website.
You have a very defensive attitude towards me and I'm not sure I understand it. The only things I ever said you were wrong about you continue to be wrong about. The zeroes in the Report did not (and still do not) mean what you said they mean. I never challenged what you were told, other than to say that wasn't reflected in the Report.
If legislators and Mitch are now saying that the University was approved for no bonding at all, I don't dispute that those statements are true, just that the Report that I based everything I said on says differently. If the Report is wrong, which I acknowledged early on was a possibility, so be it.
I still don't understand how in 2012 we're the only the SEC school to have this issue of Bonding?
You know I've been a fan of UK sports(a real fan, not just a kid listening to stories of the Cats) since 1975. These same conversations have been going on for years. It's become most taxing!
Excuses! That's the theme of UK football. You can get mad at me, call me ""LOD"" (which is not even close), or whatever you like because it doesn't matter. If people would just be honest you know I'm right. Want some examples?
1. UK can't win in the SEC. Really? Why not?
2. We can't get a ""Big Name Coach""! Why? We did it in Basketball. So what's stopping us? Money?
3. We can't build or remodel in football like other SEC teams because we don't have the boosters! Well maybe if you take care of the #2 and he takes care of #1, the money will come next.
4. We can't get bonded! So sick of this excuse.
5. UK is a BB school! Not gonna touch that one because I've seen 70,000 people going nuts after beating the #1 team in the Nation! Don't tell me UK fans don't love FB.
Just stop with the excuses. Get to the reasons behind why in 2012 we're facing the same issues we did back in 1980, 81, 82, 83,......................!
I love UK football and I want it to be a winner. Until we stop making excuses and do something about it we'll have this same topic in 2020 and beyond.
So after some more discussions/conversations/reporting, here is what it boils down to:
UK was denied the money FROM the state. What the house/senate did approve was basically that if Kentucky's athletics department can come up with $75 million they don't have to go through the whole process of getting the usage for football/Commonwealth Stadium approved again. They can now use the money for those purposes if they can come up with the cash on their own.
Is there an expiration to that authorization (e.g., if it takes 10 years to raise $75 million, to they still have the authority to spend it on football)? Anyhow, you, Drummond and Bird should be able to come up with that pocket change. Just think, the CatsPause/247Sports Commonwealth Stadium!
Awesome, so time to go back to the IMG boys and let them work their financing magic!
Second question (this one's serious); does this allow the UK athletics administration (whatever that is now) to bond this privately?
Hahaha! In this line of work we could maybe come up with $75. Or $7.50.
I'll match that! (The $7.50 that is, $75 is too rich for my blood...)
So it appears that $75 million (in some form or fashion) is authorized for Commonwealth improvements, pursuant to the statute, but the state will not be providing its bonding capacity to be used? Is that a correct statement, Matt? And is that same statement applicable to the $3 million for suites and nearly $9 million for multipurpose (read: potentially recruiting) addition?
Even without the bonding capacity available, at least we've obtained authorization to get funds from somewhere, which apparently did not exist prior to this budget. A step in the right direction, at least. And proof that maybe our administration is making an effort with respect to football.
At least we can now say that UK is authorized to spend nearly $90 million on football improvements and the question becomes where does the money come from.
Tie the CWS upgrades into the Rupp renovation. Get Cal on board with the push. Say, 25% of every dollar donated goes to football, the rest to basketball. Make it a state pride, UK versus U of L idea.
The Rupp renovation is going to happen. JMO, but it's a given that the money will be there. Tying the CWS upgrades into that may be the only solution for football.
SSB, I think you just nailed the reason that these football improvements will never happen - they will never allow football to compete against any private funds needed to remodel or build a new Rupp (not that football would actually take any funds from basketball anyhow). Only chance football has is if the Rupp renovations are state funded.
Keep saying that and you'll keep being wrong.
There's a reason why Mitch and Co. had to create a new donor base even for basketball.
The problem is Kentucky and people no longer here who worked on the fundraising campaigns for both major sports will tell you the same. It's a testament to the team they had that things even got anything done in the first place. Sadly, most of those guys have gone on to greener pastures and are running their own programs now...and having ZERO issues with fundraising for capital projects.
I've been beating this drum since way back in 2003 and everyone just dismissed it as "That's not true So and So has a lot of money, he'll give it." False. Our donor base is and has always been crap. The legislative roadblocks and certain powerful elements on the BoT who see Athletics as the piggy bank for the rest of the University are just a part. Even with those things, a strong and rich donor base could get things done..just like they do at many other schools.
I should add that politics killed the IMG deal both within the University and City/State. And like it or not it was all tied into the Rupp deal. That's what IMG wanted and everything else is secondary.
Mitch's problem was he didn't have the capital to call the bluff and say "Fine, you don't want this? We'll break the lease and start moving towards an on campus arena"
Maybe now with a national championship and the hottest brand/coach in CBB he can do it but I doubt it. Too many forces at odds.
This is the reason why I think we need to build an on campus arena adjoining a new Commonwealth Stadium. Tie the two together let them share a common area and a few ELITE level luxury boxes that can get the biggest of donors. Refuse to build the BB arena unless the money is there for FB also.
This is getting so old. Our fans (more like boosters) do not realize how important football is to the athletic budget. Right now it's baskeball, basketball, basketball. Don't get me wrong I LOVE our basketball team. But it sucks that the FB team does not get any support from our boosters, and once again ZERO from the state.
Follow me on twitter @ TailgatingCzar
After all this disussion it is easy to see why getting information from the Internet is a waste of time especially if you want that information to be correct.
UK needs a "Sugar Daddy".
The meanest dog in Taiwan.
For UK fans, strengthening the football program seems like a more hopeless endeavor than ever based on this news coming out of Frankfort. There are simply too many roadblocks in place to ever allow Mitch or any other AD get the program the capital it needs. Finally, these roadblocks are transparent.
Curious, is Mitch giving Joker more time than planned because he knows these "Frankfort Roadblocks" make the UK job even less appealing than it's been perceived?
I think we can win in the SEC. However, I probably don't think it can happen the way you envision it. I don't think we can get a big name coach unless he is damaged goods or at the end of his career. And it has nothing to do with what we are willing to pay. The reason I don't think we can attract one is because we have no history of being able to win at a high level. That makes the job to risky for a big name coach to take. A big name coach can't risk hurting his future earning potential by taking a risky job. Big name coaches will gravitate to programs where they know they can win big so their future earning potential isn't damaged. UK does not have that perception. I think the way it happens for us is the way Brooks was doing it. You win small at first. You go to multiple bowl games and you gradually change the perception of UK football with recruits. You gradually build over time to where you are upsetting some of the upper tier teams and going to better bowls. It may take 15 years of this to change how we are perceived, but I think it's the only way we will ever get there. The problem is stringing together enough good hires to make something like that happen over a long period of time. I think for programs like UK, it is very difficult to find that coach who can move the program in a positive direction because you can't attract the coach who we would think is a sure thing. On top of that, trying to hire 2 or 3 straight coaches so that we can win consistently over 15 years is very tough. If it wasn't, every program like ours would reverse their fortunes.
This post was edited by cat in the hat 2 years ago
That's the bottom line. It doesn't mean enough to the people with the money. If it did, UK would have whatever it wanted.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports