Tech Fund "process fee"

mack said:
Thanks for the answer areyou telling me however,that SC,Clemins and LSU are in bad shape too.No need for a war on who is right since you cant beat figures just shocked me with tech football and basketball we are in such shape.thans
Click to expand...

The space bar is a wonderful invention.

Seriously, I have no idea what this post is saying past the first sentence. As for the first sentence, USC and Clemson have had the same level of football success as Tech. They kind of invalidate your "football success is all that matters for revenue" theory.
 
Ignore list is a wonderful invention too. I wish more boards had it.
 
I didn't pay it. And won't pay it. I crossed it out and put a note in there that "The GTAA has lost all sense to have the balls to charge a processing fee for the right to cash my DONATION check". I also gave them a rash of **** about being smarter marketing people by showing the processing as part of the donation amount. Its just insulting and stupid on their part for showing this fee to the consumer.
 
I DEMAND ACC CHAMPIONSHIPS BEFORE I PAY AN EXTRA FIVE BUCKS WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE THEY SHOULD HIRE NORM CHOW AS OFFENSIVE COORDINATOR I BET HE WOULD COME TO TECH FOR FREE BECAUSE WE HAVE GREAT TRADITION AND THE MOST LOYAL FANS IN THE ACC AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ASK US TO PAY FIVE BUCKS.
Click to expand...
:p
 
BarrelORum said:
I didn't pay it. And won't pay it. I crossed it out and put a note in there that "The GTAA has lost all sense to have the balls to charge a processing fee for the right to cash my DONATION check". I also gave them a rash of **** about being smarter marketing people by showing the processing as part of the donation amount. Its just insulting and stupid on their part for showing this fee to the consumer.
Click to expand...

Seems like a ****ty way to lose you season ticket seat location, especially if you would have grudgingly paid it had it been buried in the donation. You should try the same with the IRS sometime.
 
If I lose my season ticket location, I would be surprised. When you fork out $1200 for the right to your seats, and you see a $20.00 processing fee, I would be amazed if they didn't cash my check.

Point is, I don't mind the extra $20. ITs the principle in the matter. Show it as part of the donation, don't be stupid by saying "Oh, and by the way, we need an extra $20 to process your tickets". I'll tell them to go f--- themselves.
 
BarrelORum said:
I didn't pay it. And won't pay it. I crossed it out and put a note in there that "The GTAA has lost all sense to have the balls to charge a processing fee for the right to cash my DONATION check". I also gave them a rash of **** about being smarter marketing people by showing the processing as part of the donation amount. Its just insulting and stupid on their part for showing this fee to the consumer.
Click to expand...
Let us know how that works out for you. Seriously.
 
I usually get upset about drummed up charges but this fee didn't upset me at all for some reason. For the first time, I really believe Tech success in D1A football is very much in danger to purely financial resons when UA can pay their coach 4 million a year. Unfortunately, the sport has turned commercial, like everything else these days. So we must do something to increase our revenue and I trust our management to make the proper decisions because I have not other alternative at this stage. That being the case, there are administrative costs that need to be addressed to make the new seating assignments and I associate this fee to deferring these costs. Am I being naieve or simply a dumb ass?
 
Bogey, your comment about UA has validity. Until Joe Schmoe from out in the boonies won't pay ridiculous amounts of money for football, because they have nothing else, we're screwed.

But the answer is not to try and play a game that we can not play, but to change the rules. If you changed the rules to having just 65 scholarship players, then you'll really even the playing fields and the stupid money chase will just not matter anymore. Division 1 football would be the better for it.

The NFL got by forever, in a 16 game season, with just 45 players. Even the field by evening the scholarships. But the NCAA is run by AD's and Presidents' who come up with these stupid PSL plans instead of dealing with things in another way.
 
midatlantech said:
But the answer is not to try and play a game that we can not play, but to change the rules. If you changed the rules to having just 65 scholarship players, then you'll really even the playing fields and the stupid money chase will just not matter anymore. Division 1 football would be the better for it.

The NFL got by forever, in a 16 game season, with just 45 players. Even the field by evening the scholarships. But the NCAA is run by AD's and Presidents' who come up with these stupid PSL plans instead of dealing with things in another way.
Click to expand...

NFL teams can cut assign new players with impunity. It's a completely different dynamic than college, where athletes typically get four years of scholarship money regardless of whether they play.

Also, football scholarships are not the main contributibers to Tech financial problem. 10-20 less scholarships would help out a little, but the main expenses are debt from building and coach's salaries.
 
I don't think you understand my intent.

By evening the field, more teams will naturally become competitive. Duke will compete (somewhat) with Michigan. The money grab will become less important (in the UA example, the huge contract for a head coach will matter less as other teams improve naturally. i.e. facilities, coaches, etc. will matter less).

Regarding 65 players, let colleges actually play with real students filling out the rosters. That's what nationally ranked private h.s. teams do, colleges should follow their lead.

Drop athletic scholarships for basketball down to 8 players too.
 
floridajacket said:
The space bar is a wonderful invention.

Seriously, I have no idea what this post is saying past the first sentence. As for the first sentence, USC and Clemson have had the same level of football success as Tech. They kind of invalidate your "football success is all that matters for revenue" theory.
Click to expand...
Myintention is not to start an agruement on who is at fault for Tech and the lack of money .what I do know is that the South Carolinas and the 'Clemsons draw close to double what we do for football and they also do well in other sports.I think if you would look at Spurrier and Carolina,they will fill up the stadium and Clemson probably averages 66000 on up.Its just hard for me to figure how these teams and Tech are having trouble with the money.I do know that alabama under Bear gave money to differerent schools.Wonde if we fillled up the stadium every game no matter who we played would we knock down some of the debts. I have folllowed tech forfifty years and its sad we are now not as prosperous as we used to.Thanks for enlighting me.Sorry about thetyping.Last time I had a course you probably were not born(63).Have good St Paddy weekend.
 
I am fairly confident that our financial woes are as bad as reported; not a trumped up effort to get more money. But, I am dismayed that we are in this position. I believe the problem is simple - we built and improved facilities without getting the necessary backing from donors to give special gifts. In particular, we did a poor job getting the big money gifts that lead to special recognitions like naming rights or other benefits.

Whenever you enter a capital expansion project, you must raise the money sufficient to pay for the project or, at least, leave a debt small enough that its service will not impair budget operations. If the pledges are insufficient, you have to scale back the project, phase it, or wait. Under Braine/Clough we went ahead with expensive upgrades that left debt large enough to impair the oprations of our program.

Now, I fear we are trying to fix the problem with the "ticket tax". This plan may work, or it may result in thinning the numbers of loyal Tech contributors and ticket buyers. Time will tell.

What else can we do? Our AD and school President can continue to court big money donations and figure out how to honor those donors appropriately. We may not have an Oklahoma State super donor, but the shortfall is not so large that we could not ease the situation through some very large gifts.

If that fails, admit we incurred too much debt without securing adequate contributions for capital expansion. The right way to deal with this is finance the debt as long term as possible while interest rates are reasonable. Trying to fix this problem quickly on the backs of the football and basketball fan base may ease short term financial pressures, but will not cure the cause of our problems.
 
midatlantech,

I agree that it would level the playing field talent-wise. However, the opposite effect would occur WRT coach's salaries. As D1-A has more parity, teams would look to differentate with better coaches, just like the NFL since the salary cap.

mack,

Sorry about my overly critical post earlier. However, there are many reasons Tech is having revenue problems and football success is only one of them.

USC and Clemson have large alumni bases in states with nothing else to do. UGA has a large alumni base with a lot of football success. Tech, in the 50s, had a lot of football success in a city with nothing else to do. Tech, today, has average football success with a small alumni base in a city with many other things to do.

We are unfortunately in this situation whether we like it or not. So, we need to look realistically at the options available for us to achieve more football success and pick the right one, even if it costs us more than we would like.
 
77GTFan said:
I am fairly confident that our financial woes are as bad as reported; not a trumped up effort to get more money. But, I am dismayed that we are in this position. I believe the problem is simple - we built and improved facilities without getting the necessary backing from donors to give special gifts. In particular, we did a poor job getting the big money gifts that lead to special recognitions like naming rights or other benefits.

Whenever you enter a capital expansion project, you must raise the money sufficient to pay for the project or, at least, leave a debt small enough that its service will not impair budget operations. If the pledges are insufficient, you have to scale back the project, phase it, or wait. Under Braine/Clough we went ahead with expensive upgrades that left debt large enough to impair the oprations of our program.
Click to expand...

Too many small donors bought the O'l crap and that's when this got out of control. I think the people who bought the crap will either now stp up to the plate and pay the ridiculous tax or GT will find tiself in a heap of trouble in competing on coach's salaries. This won't be ahuge issue other than we'll have to take more risk on hiring and then be willing to let them go when others who have more can pay more.

The reality is the upper north was built for no logical reason (as i said back then). the demand was simply not there and the only people who fil them up are AUB, UGAG, ND, fans but at $100 a year or even $200 a year the rival fans are not servicing the debt much less paying it down. It was just a horrible financial decision and seemingly made on emotion by many who were intimidated by O'l.

And he didn't even have to pay his part back. It's very frustarting for sure. I wrote in and told them I would pay the tax once they told me where I'll be sitting. I am not giving $1400 a year now. i MIGHT give it when they tell me where my four seats will be. Even then, I figure I'll be paying at least 200% over market value.

The only section that are priced anywhere close to market value are 127-129 because of the rival fans demand. GT demand is fairly stable. The students cause demand to fluctuate but sicne they now have more seats per capita than any other D1 school, perhaps the student fee deal is actually hurting. It would have been more logical to raise their fees 10% annually and DECREASE their allotment to a more realistic per capita number.

this whole thing is frustrating not that I might have to pay the fee but in the fact that a huge piece of concrete sits on one end of the stadium for opponents fans to visit 1-2 times a year that has caused GT severe financial hardship.
 
THWG, this is where scare tactics have been utilized by Rad. I'm not saying that we blew it financially, but remember this:

1) The new stadium holds 12,000 actual more seats than the old stadium. At two games a season that are sold out, UGA, AUB, etc., the NEW income annually is $2,400,000 when using $50/game. The dumb AA is undercharging here at only $35? That's $1,680.000 new income.

2) The club seats were intended to be our PSL's. They eventually sold out last year. At about 3000 seats, this should bring in approximately $1,500,000 annually (3,000 x $500).

3) We've averaged 52,000 fans or so since the new stadium opened. That's about 9,000 more fans per game for three non sellout games or $540,000 annually.

All told, we should be bringing in about $4,400,000 new income since the new stadium was built (not including added parking or food sales). If they charged the going rate of $50 a game (big games) then this number would have been $5,160,000 new income.

Now if we add in the new student fees of $1.5M and estimated Tech input of $1M, then you are at about $7,000,000 per year. (I take some liberty here because the students are taking away some seats for the biggest games.)

IF I totally funded the $70M over 20 years at 8% it would cost about $7,000,000 annually.

The truth of it all, is that RAD came in and decided we must be and act like a SEC team. This is a big mistake in my opinion.

The second truth of it all, is that RAD took the opportunity to bust up our contracts with the AT. Why?, I have no idea, but I think he plans on going back to LSU and I guess he wants us to be a non-competitor. :)

The third truth of it all, is that we wasted $10M to $15M the last four years and have zero money. IF things go badly, we're screwed. The PRESENT fans are getting hammered to pay for poor financial decisions.

The fourth truth of it all, is that Braine never raised any money and should never have built the stadium without at least HALF of it payed for. It seems like we paid for ZERO. I don't ever remember being asked for money by the way.
 
Really I don't know why if Alabama folks are dumb enough to pay a coach 4 Mil a year why we would want to follow them into the abyss.

They really seem to be floundering to me, I really don't see what a bigger budget is going to do. If college athletics is all going to come down to who spends the most, then stop the train I want to get off.

Fact of a matter is, lets say it takes $25K per year to pay an athlete's way in school. That means you can pay for 40 football players for what a Chan costs. And 4 times that? Thats just pissing money away unless the coach walks on water.

At some point, I don't see the extra money making a team better.
 
midatlantech,
Do we know for certain that the AT contract has been broken. I must be missing the official statement that there will not be a future reseating in 2008. I'm not trying to be argumentative; but I find it odd that they haven't come out and said the reseating in 2008 is cancelled. It seems like it would stop a lot of the complaining if they would just reseat next year like was scheduled, with the PSL in place.
 
aeromech said:
midatlantech,
Do we know for certain that the AT contract has been broken. I must be missing the official statement that there will not be a future reseating in 2008. I'm not trying to be argumentative; but I find it odd that they haven't come out and said the reseating in 2008 is cancelled. It seems like it would stop a lot of the complaining if they would just reseat next year like was scheduled, with the PSL in place.
Click to expand...

From the Tech Fund FAQ's
---------------------------------------------------
Can someone with more priority points bump me out of my current seats?
As long as you pay the corresponding contribution to the TECH Fund, someone with more priority points will not displace you from your seats.
---------------------------------------------------
I believe the statement indicates there will be no reseating.

Unfortunately, it's what the document doesn't say that you need to be aware of. There will also be no free parking next year. That has been eliminated. Everyone will pay for parking, no matter the contribution. But it doesn't say that anywhere...
 
As for myself---i intend on purchasing season tix (with PSL) because i can afford it this year and the tax deduction will help b/c i'm purchasing a house this year. the way i see it--my program needs financial help and i've gotten more entertainment for my dollar in the past 12 years than i've deserved so....it's time to pony up. now i just need to figure out if i'm going 2, 3 or 4 tixs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top