Online Now 1345

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

On this Board 407
Record: 3046 (4/11/2012)

Online now 949
Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

The Paddock

The place to discuss general topics outside of Kentucky

UK Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

Kentucky Legislature approves $75 million in bonding

  • princeuk21 said...

    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.

    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.

    signature image

    E-mail: JDRUM@247SPORTS.COM Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK

    Jeff Drummond

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    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?

    The truth of the matter is, Kentucky has what it needs to be successful right now. The Cats have to win games. Win games, more people with money will start to care. But you can't keep going sub-.500 in SEC play for 30+ years.

    signature image

    E-mail: JDRUM@247SPORTS.COM Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK

    Jeff Drummond

  • Jeff Drummond said...

    The truth of the matter is, Kentucky has what it needs to be successful right now. The Cats have to win games. Win games, more people with money will start to care. But you can't keep going sub-.500 in SEC play for 30+ years.

    I guess you're right. You gotta admit though, JDrum......it's absolutely a damn embarrassment that UK officials are still pondering the specifics of a GD "recruiting room" 8 years after it was proposed. LoL. I know the recruiting room really isn't that big of a deal, but to think that this program has had 8 yrs to raise money and plan it out, and is truly still in the "planning stages" is sadly hilarious. That just sums up the ability of lack thereof to get ANYTHING of significance accomplished in that program.

    MinterWonderlnd

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    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?

    That would be pretty good reasoning. But Joker does have a good staff staff in place and some pretty good young talent. As long as UK is competitive this year, he will get the needed time.

    dustarm20

  • MinterWonderlnd said...

    I guess you're right. You gotta admit though, JDrum......it's absolutely a damn embarrassment that UK officials are still pondering the specifics of a GD "recruiting room" 8 years after it was proposed. LoL. I know the recruiting room really isn't that big of a deal, but to think that this program has had 8 yrs to raise money and plan it out, and is truly still in the "planning stages" is sadly hilarious. That just sums up the ability of lack thereof to get ANYTHING of significance accomplished in that program.

    I don't know about "embarrassing," but I will agree that it's perplexing why it hasn't happened yet.

    signature image

    E-mail: JDRUM@247SPORTS.COM Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK

    Jeff Drummond

  • Didn't we have the funds for the recruiting room at one point under Brooks but he decided that a new indoor turf was better use of the funds or something like that?

    signature image

    Stoopified!

    cobbycobb

  • MoC said...

    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

    I don't think you and I are in disagreement.

    DACats86

  • Jeff Drummond said...

    The truth of the matter is, Kentucky has what it needs to be successful right now. The Cats have to win games. Win games, more people with money will start to care. But you can't keep going sub-.500 in SEC play for 30+ years.

    I think it has gotten to the point that the lack of facilities and obvious lack of commitment to football is now affecting the ability to win. There should have been some positive momentum after the 2007 season.

    DACats86

  • Jeff Drummond said...

    The truth of the matter is, Kentucky has what it needs to be successful right now. The Cats have to win games. Win games, more people with money will start to care. But you can't keep going sub-.500 in SEC play for 30+ years.

    Jeff - I agree with you that we have what we need to be successful and I know Mitch doesn't want to "piece meal" the improvement to the stadium, but that may be the world in which we live. According to the numbers in the proposed budgeted we can build the recruiting room, a few extra suites, and do the infrastructure improvements for about $14 million. Well, let's do that first. The department could fund that out of operations over a 2 year period. Build the recruiting room as an addition on the Nutter field house with a walk way over to the stadium. Put in the extra suites and do the infrastructure work. Then, come back with another $10-$15 million project and convert all of the covered seating on the Cooper Drive side to Club Level seating. Then if there needs to be some additional $2 million dollar landscaping and fascade work over time then do it. But if they want to improve the stadium with things that will "potentially" help recruiting and most likely increase revenue just do it. Don't wait on someone else to help us. Most, if not all of that, could be funded with operational money; however, I believe raising $10-$15 million with a plan and drawing is doable even in these times. Do you think that is off base? I am not and engineer or architect, but it seems those projectes are doable.

    usa1000

  • Jeff, I agree to ceratin point but alot of has do with who asking , CAL has very good relationship with right people and that is great, other coachs not so much , I would be very leary giving anything to UK in football, no donors are giving anything to UK until they show more commitment, heard that from a couple of people who has giving in past. Barnhart cant do it either

    OptimusBlue5716

  • Is asking for $100MM+ for football-specific improvements from the Legislature not demonstrating commitment?

    If it is not, what is "commitment" to you?

    Prior to the most recent legislative session, the University had no approval to expend funds, no matter the source (edit: This is incorrect, the statute refers to funds coming from financial instruments, meaning bonds, loans, etc.), to improve Commonwealth Stadium. See Matt's post on page 4. There may or may not have been approval from the Legislature, required by statute, to expend funds in the past, specifically the IMG deal that went south a few years ago. As a matter of fact, I would be very interested to know whether our prior financing proposal with IMG went so far as to seek approval from the Legislature to expend funds, or whether it died before ever reaching that point.

    In any event, as it stands today the use of funds, in the amount of nearly $90MM, is approved. While there may be some question as to where the funds will come from, the reality is that our administration requested, and the Legislature approved, the use of these funds for specific football-related improvements.

    That demonstrates commitment, certainly far and away above the level of commitment you (and, until recently, I) believe the administration is giving to UK football. The question is now whether the fans, boosters, or corporate sponsors (Edit: or financial institutions) want to demonstrate the same commitment to football as our administration.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by JDHLaw11 on 4/13/2012 at 11:34 AM

    JDHLaw11

  • JDHLaw11 said...

    Is asking for $100MM+ for football-specific improvements from the Legislature not demonstrating commitment?

    If it is not, what is "commitment" to you?

    Prior to the most recent legislative session, the University had no approval to expend funds, no matter the source (edit: This is incorrect, the statute refers to funds coming from financial instruments, meaning bonds, loans, etc.), to improve Commonwealth Stadium. See Matt's post on page 4. There may or may not have been approval from the Legislature, required by statute, to expend funds in the past, specifically the IMG deal that went south a few years ago. As a matter of fact, I would be very interested to know whether our prior financing proposal with IMG went so far as to seek approval from the Legislature to expend funds, or whether it died before ever reaching that point.

    In any event, as it stands today the use of funds, in the amount of nearly $90MM, is approved. While there may be some question as to where the funds will come from, the reality is that our administration requested, and the Legislature approved, the use of these funds for specific football-related improvements.

    That demonstrates commitment, certainly far and away above the level of commitment you (and, until recently, I) believe the administration is giving to UK football. The question is now whether the fans, boosters, or corporate sponsors want to demonstrate the same commitment to football as our administration.

    asking for something you know your not going to get is not commitment, thats passing the buck IMO

    OptimusBlue5716

  • Passing the buck to who, exactly? Asking for funds, if those funds are going to be from any type of financial instrument, including bonding, is mandated by statute for UK. The first choice of financial instrument funds, obviously, was to use its own bonding capacity, which has been denied. That does not foreclose the possibility of other financing.

    Unless you think there's someone (or group of someones) out there ready to write a donation check for $100MM, asking for funds has to happen every single time.

    Read the statute, if UK wants to get money (over $400,000) from any source other than a private donation, to be expended on any real property, it has to ask the Legislature for permission first.

    Matt May, speaking with whomever he does within the administration, has told you that, now that it has the legislature's approval, the administration is seeking financing.

    You have stated that there is no commitment to the football program. You have direct evidence of funding requests, expenditure approval, and the search for financing, all directly related to the football program. What more does the administration have to do to demonstrate "commitment" to you?

    This post was edited by JDHLaw11 on 4/13/2012 at 11:54 AM

    JDHLaw11

  • JDHLaw11 said...

    Passing the buck to who, exactly? Asking for funds, if those funds are going to be from any type of financial instrument, including bonding, is mandated by statute for UK. The first choice of financial instrument funds, obviously, was to use its own bonding capacity, which has been denied. That does not foreclose the possibility of other financing.

    Unless you think there's someone (or group of someones) out there ready to write a donation check for $100MM, asking for funds has to happen every single time.

    Read the statute, if UK wants to get money (over $400,000) from any source other than a private donation, to be expended on any real property, it has to ask the Legislature for permission first.

    Matt May, speaking with whomever he does within the administration, has told you that, now that it has the legislature's approval, the administration is seeking financing.

    You have stated that there is no commitment to the football program. You have direct evidence of funding requests, expenditure approval, and the search for financing, all directly related to the football program. What more does the administration have to do to demonstrate "commitment" to you?

    maybe start with some projects like expanding the weight room, recuriting room, increase their recuriting budget, improve the Spring Game and Fan day( both where a mess last year). They will spend 7 mill on womans softball field and over 10 mill on a track , they can do the things above without donations.

    This post was edited by OptimusBlue5716 on 4/13/2012 at 1:39 PM

    OptimusBlue5716

  • DACats86 said...

    I think it has gotten to the point that the lack of facilities and obvious lack of commitment to football is now affecting the ability to win. There should have been some positive momentum after the 2007 season.

    They don't have a lack of facilities. They have a lack of blocks, tackles, catches... and wins.

    signature image

    E-mail: JDRUM@247SPORTS.COM Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK

    Jeff Drummond

  • Optimus-Blue said...

    Jeff, I agree to ceratin point but alot of has do with who asking , CAL has very good relationship with right people and that is great, other coachs not so much , I would be very leary giving anything to UK in football, no donors are giving anything to UK until they show more commitment, heard that from a couple of people who has giving in past. Barnhart cant do it either

    It's not who's asking, it's what he's asking for. People don't care enough about football to give big money.

    Colin Cowherd has had some good shows about this subject before. If people care enough, the money is always there.

    signature image

    E-mail: JDRUM@247SPORTS.COM Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK

    Jeff Drummond

  • cobbycobb said...

    Didn't we have the funds for the recruiting room at one point under Brooks but he decided that a new indoor turf was better use of the funds or something like that?

    Barnhart said that, and it really pissed off Brooks. I think Brooks has a different point of view of how that went down.

    BigTyrone

  • usa1000 said...

    Jeff - I agree with you that we have what we need to be successful and I know Mitch doesn't want to "piece meal" the improvement to the stadium, but that may be the world in which we live. According to the numbers in the proposed budgeted we can build the recruiting room, a few extra suites, and do the infrastructure improvements for about $14 million. Well, let's do that first. The department could fund that out of operations over a 2 year period. Build the recruiting room as an addition on the Nutter field house with a walk way over to the stadium. Put in the extra suites and do the infrastructure work. Then, come back with another $10-$15 million project and convert all of the covered seating on the Cooper Drive side to Club Level seating. Then if there needs to be some additional $2 million dollar landscaping and fascade work over time then do it. But if they want to improve the stadium with things that will "potentially" help recruiting and most likely increase revenue just do it. Don't wait on someone else to help us. Most, if not all of that, could be funded with operational money; however, I believe raising $10-$15 million with a plan and drawing is doable even in these times. Do you think that is off base? I am not and engineer or architect, but it seems those projectes are doable.

    Yeah. I'm not really sure why that's not feasible. I wish it would happen so we could move past it.

    signature image

    E-mail: JDRUM@247SPORTS.COM Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK

    Jeff Drummond

Kentucky
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports