Situations where the Chair wants to fire for poor performance and the Board prevents from doing so, I would suggest are very rare. The point all along in this thread is that Leadership and Commitment at the top level is absolutely necessary to climb out of this hole. What do you think the Chair and Board would find themselves doing at most land grant schools with winning programs if they didn't take action after 3 years of putrid performance?
A President of a land grant U would be fired. Tech is not a land grant U and it's leadership is not judged on athletics. I can assure you that if Bobby Raine (richest man in Alabama) wants the President of Auburn fired, the decision will be discussed at a boardroom in a bank in Montgomery, followed by a call to Governor and it's over.
Texiera has to approve that.
Where can one find details about our $200M debt? For example, is it a bond, which would explain why we are only making interest payments? If so when is its maturity date?
www.fromtherumbleseat.com
See the post below yours. The cash is there for the asking, provided someone wants to ask.
There are posts that seem to speculate that the money is there. However, if you look at an athletic association financial statement or at the year by year on the Knight Commission reports it is plain that there is not more money coming in than going out: https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs/...f-technology#!quicktabs-tab-where_the_money-1 There are buckets of money that the athletic department has, but most of that is tied up in endowments, from which they can only use the earnings and only for the purpose that the endowment was set up.
As I recall, there area about 20 schools that bring is huge dollars, about 20 that break even or post a small surplus and the rest ... basically lose money on athletics. Tech isn't any more or less worse, except for all the debt. There simply is no extra room to work with.
Vespidae, I know full well who is and isn't a land grant U. I also know more than a little about how AU works. We are in agreement about likely not getting the necessary leadership. This is the very core of my multiple post on this thread. I don't however agree that Tech couldn't significantly modify it's support of the football program. Not likely, but neither was our '90 MNC.
We were rolling it over either late 2020 or early 2021 before the interest rates spiked. If we didn’t do that, fire Stansbury now. It was his top priority. The threat of looming higher interest rates was well understood. I never did get confirmation it happened and at what interest rate but what where they were was very favorable short term and long term.
I’ve posted before the reason why at the end of last season Collins the value of his buyout was essentially the same for then, end of this season and end of next season. It’s not just the size of the buyout it’s the diminishing revenue and the amount of years and ensuing financial damage to repair digging a deeper ditch. It was the whole financial premise behind the movement to replace him in December. It’s essentially a wash. Stansbury made a choice to give him another year and is hoping for the best.
I’m not sure if I’d call $37M in Unrestricted Operations funds precious little money, it’s a little less than a half a year’s revenue for us. That was able to be used on anything Stansbury wanted including debt reduction or coaches salaries or make up for lost season ticket revenue, etc. The other approx $138M we raised went to scholarships, funded coaches that weren’t funded before, etc (asked $25M and got $37M ) and the rest went to other assorted capital projects (asked $88 got $102)