Stadium Sponsor

[Boomer23]

We could call up Texas Instruments and get the TI-Mean Green Stadium or even the Apple iStadium

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

you think UNT give up something with Wells Fargo if they got into "bed" with Comerica?

Yes, if the price is right. Wells Fargo has only had the UNT account for a few years (since they acquired First State). While I believe in lovalty, what if Comerica offered $20 million for naming rights to the (Eagle Point) stadium and the University of North Texas account and Wells Fargo only offered five? Large entities do change their repositories from time to time.

By the way, since people are wont to name possibilities, how about Verizon? I'm sure that the University has speent millions over the years with Verizon/GTE.

[PHSCoach]

We could call up Texas Instruments and get the TI-Mean Green Stadium or even the Apple iStadium

TI gave UNT Dallas a little over a mil last week

[stebo]

It might seem silly, but Coca Cola seems like a really easy target to me. They have rights to the campus. They serve their soft drinks in every dorm and in every machine at UNT. They also have exclusivity for all athletic events. Every time the contract comes up, NT edges them for a little bit more of a cut off of each month's sales - where that money goes, I have no idea... I imagine it goes into the General Fund, which we cannot pull money (for athletics) out of by state law.

BUT, if the contract were to be re-structured over a long period - let's say the next twenty years... and that money would come in the form of a donation based on estimated sales... Coca Cola could spend the SAME amount of money that they do now and get a fancy field named in their honor. I am dead serious, the soda contract at NT is huge, they pay us at least a million a year for the right to sell their product exclusively on our campus. Take that commitment that is now going into the general fund, restructure the contract so that it goes in the form of a donation to the athletic department (since we cannot accept money from the general fund by state law), and BOOM - there is your stadium. They wouldn't even have to pay it all up front, as long as we had the commitment from them in writing - we could bond it out tomorrow. Banks would be fighting for the right to finance it.

Edited March 9, 2007 by stebo

[JayDub]

It might seem silly, but Coca Cola seems like a really easy target to me. They have rights to the campus. They serve their soft drinks in every dorm and in every machine at UNT. They also have exclusivity for all athletic events. Every time the contract comes up, NT edges them for a little bit more of a cut off of each month's sales - where that money goes, I have no idea... I imagine it goes into the General Fund, which we cannot pull money (for athletics) out of by state law.

BUT, if the contract were to be re-structured over a long period - let's say the next twenty years... and that money would come in the form of a donation based on estimated sales... Coca Cola could spend the SAME amount of money that they do now and get a fancy field named in their honor. I am dead serious, the soda contract at NT is huge, they pay us at least a million a year for the right to sell their product exclusively on our campus. Take that commitment that is now going into the general fund, restructure the contract so that it goes in the form of a donation to the athletic department (since we cannot accept money from the general fund by state law), and BOOM - there is your stadium. They wouldn't even have to pay it all up front, as long as we had the commitment from them in writing - we could bond it out tomorrow. Banks would be fighting for the right to finance it.

Why again are you not working in the athletic department?

[emmitt01]

If all else falls through lets have Plumm donate a dollar for every word he posts on GMG.

[stebo]

Why again are you not working in the athletic department?

LOL, because I work for UOP - not UNT (they pay better). But seriously, it seems like a very easy deal to get done with an athletic friendly President. If Coke doesn't want to deal - I bet you anything that Pepsi would love to sink their teeth into a campus with 33K students that is projected to have 45K students within the next 7 years. Why does Coke pay so much for the rights? It is not all about profit, it is about name power. When a person develops drinking habits, it is when they are young. Coke knnows that if a kid gets used to saying "Give me a Coke" from a young age that they will buy Coke for the rest of their lives. In the Northeast and in California, Pepsi is the word used. When you ask for a Coke there - they automatically correct you and say - "You mean that you want a Pepsi, right?" So Coke knows the power of their name and want to hold onto a campus like ours. They are not only influencing the students while they are in school but for the rest of their lives. I would prefer to stick with Coke, it is kinda silly asking for a Rum and Pepsi

[runt96]

LOL, because I work for UOP - not UNT (they pay better). But seriously, it seems like a very easy deal to get done with an athletic friendly President. If Coke doesn't want to deal - I bet you anything that Pepsi would love to sink their teeth into a campus with 33K students that is projected to have 45K students within the next 7 years. Why does Coke pay so much for the rights? It is not all about profit, it is about name power. When a person develops drinking habits, it is when they are young. Coke knnows that if a kid gets used to saying "Give me a Coke" from a young age that they will buy Coke for the rest of their lives. In the Northeast and in California, Pepsi is the word used. When you ask for a Coke there - they automatically correct you and say - "You mean that you want a Pepsi, right?" So Coke knows the power of their name and want to hold onto a campus like ours. They are not only influencing the students while they are in school but for the rest of their lives. I would prefer to stick with Coke, it is kinda silly asking for a Rum and Pepsi

Hey, Dr. Pepper has shown their commitment to sports, locally.

[OldTimer]

Hey, Dr. Pepper has shown their commitment to sports, locally.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that NT already has a deal for soft drinks and the money goes to the general fund. I worked for A&M Galveston and several community colleges and we had same deal...the smallest CC got a scoreboard for BB.

[Guest ike]

how about Bimbo foods from Mexico!

[MCMLXXX]

how about Bimbo foods from Mexico!

They do own Mrs. Bairds bread and Vernon Baird is a UNT Alum. So there is a connection. Imagine "Welcome to Bimbo Stadium in Denton Texas." It has a unique ring to it.

[GreenMachine]

They do own Mrs. Bairds bread and Vernon Baird is a UNT Alum. So there is a connection. Imagine "Welcome to Bimbo Stadium in Denton Texas." It has a unique ring to it.

I've known a few bimbo's in Denton in my days. In fact, one day, in band camp......

[ntsumgspe]

How about Interstate Battery Stadium ? Norm Miller, president of Interstate Battery is a North Texas alum.

[greenjoe]

Interstate Battery has always seemed the most likely opportunity to me.

Or they could donate a large sum to get us "started."

[OldTimer]

They do own Mrs. Bairds bread and Vernon Baird is a UNT Alum. So there is a connection. Imagine "Welcome to Bimbo Stadium in Denton Texas." It has a unique ring to it.

Its my understanding that Mrs. Bairds is now owned by a Mexican company..ie Binbo .not Vernon Baird...

[stebo]

Well, I have been flooded with e-mails asking me about my idea. I decided that it might be a good idea after all after all of the feedback that I got through e-mail so I pitched it to RV in an e-mail - I will let you know what he thinks. Here is what I wrote:

Coach RV,

I was brainstorming on the message board and might have actually come up with a pretty good idea if Dr. B would go along with it. From what I understand, the major problem with funding a stadium in Texas (this state in particular) is that University funds cannot go directly to the athletic department with the exception of student service fees. From what I understand, this has held the school back from simply building a new stadium and then bonding it out without having a real guarantee lined up. Sure, we could incorporate public/student use into a stadium to get some funds but the classrooms would not cover a significant amount of space and there will be no track in the new stadium. It is my understanding that the athletic department cannot even get funds from the General Fund, even with BOR approval or President approval or SGA approval - it is simply against state law... this may or may not be completely true, but I am pretty sure that it is partially true.

I like to think outside the box but this idea is very doable. When I owned the Tavern on Fry Street, I was a student and served on the SGA. We had to review a new proposal by Coke for vending exclusivity rights over "x" amount of years. They pitched it to us and told us why they had a vested interest in making Coke the exclusive product carried by UNT. In addition to the revenue split that Coke gives us from VENDING, they pay for rights to be exclusive at events and simply on campus in general. Currently this money goes into the General Fund; which athletics cannot touch. If we want money from Coke to go to the athletic department, then they have to agree to give more. This is unlikely. But what if they could give the same amount and secure naming rights to the stadium in the process? Wouldn't that be a win-win situation for both parties? Who it would effect - the General Fund people and their budget. Well, I believe that a simple study will show that the General Fund has a surplus every single fiscal year and that they can afford to part with that annual revenue. Another company that has a contract with the University in a similar nature is the City of Denton (at least they did when I lived there). The city controls most of the power and general utilities but there is now an open market for these services due to de-regulation. From what I remember, the City of Denton just gives a discount for the services and then - again - donates revenue to the General Fund... again, money that cannot (under state law) be used for athletics.

Where am I going? A simple restructure. Get the BOR and Dr B on board and you can negotiate with Coke or even the City of Denton to pay for the stadium. They would not have to spend even one extra penny. The idea is to pay for the stadium (essentially) with General Fund money - but instead of having it go into the General Fund and then try to get the State to change the law and let us use this money - simply re-negotiate the contract(s) with one of these companies (heck, there are probably dozens more - Ben E Keith, Kraft Services, etc...) - Let's say that Coca Cola pays us (on the average) $1 million bucks a year in revenue and exclusivity rights. Have them terminate the contract as it now stands (or we will terminate it for them) - and re-write the thing so that the deal is with the athletic department and not the General Fund. The services would still be provided to the entire school, the payment residuals would just go directly to the athletic department. If they are paying in $1 million a year (a low estimate in my opinion) then we sign a 20 year contract with them and they would be ecstatic for finally getting a long term contract (I think that we re-evaluate their contract every 5 years now). This will lock Coke into NT for the next 20 years without inflation. With the student increase estimates and their current profits off of NT, I don't think they would be able to turn it down... only the contract is with the money going to the athletic dept, not the General Fund. Again, Coke will not be spending extra money on this, they will be spending whatever it is that they are now paying to NT - it will just go to a different bank account. If they don't want to deal - well, Pepsi would love to get a crack at us.

From my SGA days - I always wanted to know why Coke wanted the rights so badly... Why does Coke pay so much for the rights to little NT? It is not all about profit, it is about name power. When a person develops drinking habits, it is when they are young. Coke knows that if a kid gets used to saying "Give me a Coke" from a young age that they will buy Coke for the rest of their lives. In the Northeast and in California, Pepsi is the word used. When you ask for a Coke there - they automatically correct you and say - "You mean that you want a Pepsi, right?" So Coke knows the power of their name and wants to hold onto a campus like ours. They are not only influencing the students while they are in school but for the rest of their lives.

As for the other "company"/monopoly that I mentioned - The City of Denton- they are not really fighting off competition because the city size has not hit the point where TXU can come in and compete. But that is right around the corner - and the University can deal with whomever they want for utilities unlike the common consumer. I think that the City would strike this deal, give them the Super Pit naming rights and no additional cost and they will jump at it.

So there you have two donors, already giving money to the school - that goes into a surplus General Fund - that we cannot currently use for athletics (by State Law). Neither would have to spend any money on the project and both could be granted naming rights in some form for going along with the restructured contracts. Give Coca Cola the stadium naming rights and give the City of Denton the Super Pit. Both would be happy with such an arrangement, they have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain from such arrangement. We could build the Coca Cola stadium with bonds based on future guaranteed revenue (Coke would obviously not want to put the money up in advance, but the contract will be worth its weight in gold - with that type of guaranteed funding each year, specifically earmarked for the athletic dept - bonding this thing out should be zero problem.

Ok, I am off my soap box now - but I think it is worth looking into. I hope that you explore this option right away. I really think this could be a solution for the "big donor" problem. What do you think? Worth taking a look at?

Sincerely,

Steven D. Boedeker

steve@gomeangreen.com

[Mad Hatter]

I like it. Let us know what he thinks!