True Or False ?

[MeanGreen61]

Post by someone using the handle TodgeRodge on the Belt board.

there will be no significant increase in athletics budget as the vast majority if not all of the athletics funding that is coming in from the new fee will be used to cover the debt service on the bonds that are being sold to cover the cost of the stadium

at most UNT might see ~10% increase in available funds to run the program on and while a 10% increase in budget is nice it is really not significant especially when you are well down in the funding levels in conference and near the very bottom in all of D1-A

there is not a game changing amount of funding coming in for UNT that will be available to do anything of significance with....there might be a million or two a year which in itself is a nice amount of money until you realize that UNT is millions and millions away from being even near the top of the Belt

increases in revenue will have to come in the form of ticket sales, donations, TV money, and NCAA money for UNT to really have any significant increase in budget

[UNTflyer]

The truth is that nobody really knows. It will really depend on the kind of sponsorship we get for the stadium.

I understand Coca-Cola is the leading candidate. $20 million will go a long way toward services those bonds. The field has a separate naming pricetag of $10 million. If both can be sold, that's almost half the the cost of the stadium.

Sales of the club level and suites will also count for a few million bucks.

[TheTastyGreek]

The truth is that nobody really knows. It will really depend on the kind of sponsorship we get for the stadium.

I understand Coca-Cola is the leading candidate. $20 million will go a long way toward services those bonds. The field has a separate naming pricetag of $10 million. If both can be sold, that's almost half the the cost of the stadium.

Sales of the club level and suites will also count for a few million bucks.

That is not encouraging.

Texas Tech and Maryland only sold for $20 million, and that was a few years back when the money available for naming rights was much, much better than it is today. Both are in BCS conferences, and the naming rights carry the significant value of national and regional television exposure.

Akron sold theirs a year or two ago, for a total of $10 million. That sounds encouraging, but it was a personal donation from a guy who has lived in Akron for decades, and in return they agreed to put his company's name on the stadium. They sold the field for half that to a non-profit hospital. Basically, they got about half of what it sounds like we're hoping for, and that was through community support and personal financial contributions from longtime residents and supporters.

[UNTX]

Post by someone using the handle TodgeRodge on the Belt board.

there will be no significant increase in athletics budget as the vast majority if not all of the athletics funding that is coming in from the new fee will be used to cover the debt service on the bonds that are being sold to cover the cost of the stadium

at most UNT might see ~10% increase in available funds to run the program on and while a 10% increase in budget is nice it is really not significant especially when you are well down in the funding levels in conference and near the very bottom in all of D1-A

there is not a game changing amount of funding coming in for UNT that will be available to do anything of significance with....there might be a million or two a year which in itself is a nice amount of money until you realize that UNT is millions and millions away from being even near the top of the Belt

increases in revenue will have to come in the form of ticket sales, donations, TV money, and NCAA money for UNT to really have any significant increase in budget

No doubt in my mind after reading through this guy's crap on the SBC BBS board that this is our old wing-nut "I hate UNT" friend CHECK FACTS. Ignore him. His math is also totally wrong but I don't have desire to debate with someone who hates North Texas athletics and has some serious loose screws. Responding to this nut will only spur him on.

[UNTflyer]

No doubt in my mind after reading through this guy's crap on the SBC BBS board that this is our old wing-nut "I hate UNT" friend CHECK FACTS. Ignore him. His math is also totally wrong but I don't have desire to debate with someone who hates North Texas athletics and has some serious loose screws. Responding to this nut will only spur him on.

THAT'S the guy! I was thinking the same thing but couldn't remember his screen name.

[GreenStreet]

No one in there right mind would pass up an opportunity to have their name on a stadium that is right off a major highway. Sadly we will have a "Brand name" at the top of the entrance, but I doubt the company would really have intentions of supporting the growth of UNT Athletics.

However once the check is cashed who really cares.

[TheTastyGreek]

No one in there right mind would pass up an opportunity to have their name on a stadium that is right off a major highway.

They will if it's cheaper to just rent a billboard. Cheaper, more prominent, and more direct.

Geography is nice and it's a point in our favor... But it isn't the value of naming rights, at least not at the price levels that Flyer mentioned.

Geography saves you the cost of a billboard. One billboard.

TV exposure saves you the cost of multiple ad buys on local, national, and regional cable television. Also, integrated mentions in local news, sports radio, newspaper articles... All sorts of mass media exposure that people are focused on seeing and hearing, not just seeing out of the corner of their eye as they drive to and from Winstar Casino.

[KRAM1]

It would help overall revenue, the naming rights discussion and the program overall if fans would buy season tickets and actually come to the games this season. That, coupled with UNT's first winning season in several years, could do a great deal to move revenue stream up.

BTW...have you bought or renewed your season tickets as yet, joined the Mean Green Club (any level you want will do just fine), made a donation to the new stadium (again, any level you want is fine), joined the Alumni Association or donated to a scholarship lately? All of this, at any level, helps when the AD can tell a potential naming rights candidate that we have so many season ticket holders, "x" number of members in our Mean Green Club and Alumni Associations, "X" number of stadium donors and scholarship donors, etc., etc. You may not think this sort of thing helps, but it is amazing what "large numbers" in these areas can do for a program.

You simply cannot sit back and "let someone else" do it, or wait until some coach gets fired, or they add baseball or some other sport, or start winning, etc., etc. Excuses (and that's what they are really) don't get the job done. Withholding donations and memberships doesn't do a thing other than hurt the program. Your donation can be as big or as small as you want, you can join the Mean Green Club and Alumni Associations at minimum levels, you can make a small donation to the stadium fund, etc. Whatever you can do helps the cause and adds numbers...numbers are very important to the program right now as things turn positive with the new stadium and the expected improved performance on the field.

Think about it seriously. Is there a REAL reason, other than some perceived snub or some dislike for a certain individual, etc. that is holding you back? Just think about what you really can do to help support YOUR university as it does what it can to move forward. Your help is needed.

GO MEAN GREEN!

[Stan R]

Hmm. Interesting. So people are bashing this "check facts" guy but nobody is refuting the claim. So bottom line here is extremely discouraging at least in my estimation. We have more money but jack squat in terms of donations to cover the cost of the stadium. We will use the majority of the money to cover the debt on the structure leaving us very little to improve the overall budget.

I don't see anyone outright disputing this and in fact Flyer - the guy who is probably closest to the situation is begrudgingly acknowledging some truth to the claims. Heartbreaking if true. Sounds like we will be "house poor" for some time. We had better hope that increases in ticket sales and MGC memberships will help us pay this debt off quicker.

[GreenFlag]

I see "Check Facts" as one of those conspiracy theory people. Lot's of "facts" but the dots never get connected because he/she is presenting a few trees and never the forest.

He/She was WAY off the mark on the stadium currently being constructed.

[UNTFan23]

Link to the thread?

[Stan R]

I see "Check Facts" as one of those conspiracy theory people. Lot's of "facts" but the dots never get connected because he/she is presenting a few trees and never the forest.

He/She was WAY off the mark on the stadium currently being constructed.

I hear what you are saying, but you aren't presenting any new "Facts" that refute his claim. The best you can offer is what everyone else is offering - "We just don't know".

[TheTastyGreek]

I hear what you are saying, but you aren't presenting any new "Facts" that refute his claim. The best you can offer is what everyone else is offering - "We just don't know".

Whatever anyone may think of the other numerous axes that guy is grinding, he has hit on the one thing that has worried me from the very beginning of the process: We can only use school money to cover a max of 50% of the cost. Somewhere, somehow, we have to raise $39 million of private funds to cover the balance.

That can be naming rights, donations, sponsorships, branded advertising, ticket sales... That money can come from a lot of places. But it has to total up to half of the cost- $39 million in principal funds, a whole lot more depending on what our rate is on the bonds.

The school can't bail us out. It's against the law. We can't spend fee money or additional supplemental funds from the UNT budget.

There are a lot of creative accounting games that can be played to maximize how much we bring in... Pay a guarantee game with public funds to generate a big game of ticket sales that would count as private money, etc. But the bottom line is that we're going to have to raise a sum, one way or another, that still equals a significant proportion of our school's endowment.

A year and a half ago, the school's total endowment was under $52 million. To pay off the stadium, we're going to need a sum not too far away from the total stored value the entire system has been able to sock away through the operating history of our school.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but it could turn out to be an alarming situation.

[UNTLifer]

Of course, didn't Dr. B state that we would not build until 50% of the money was donated?

[TheTastyGreek]

Of course, didn't Dr. B state that we would not build until 50% of the money was donated?

I don't remember that, unless it's something that was said during the student fee campaign. I do vaguely recall something about Dr. B being a voice of reason and restraint back then.

Not joking here: Quoner and I spent a little bit of time volunteering for the capital campaign committee for a local theater. It was a very eye opening experience about how these sorts of fundraising efforts work.

The reason I mention it is because part of their orchestrated effort was to pre-raise a certain sum during a (for lack of a better term) "quiet phase" of fundraising, then use that war chest as a PR chip to get them the rest of the way in a very public campaign. If I remember right, it was an 8 figure total, and they wanted 1/3rd of it raised in the "quiet phase" before they publicized the effort. That makes it look like it's already a success before they've officially started trying, and avoids a public embarrassment if they name a lofty goal and come up very short.

Anyway... I have no idea what sort of money we've already banked in donations or how much more is lined up in pledges. But if we were already at the mark, I would have expected some sort of publicity about it. That would be a phenomenal, amazing accomplishment, and it would serve us well in raising even more money to have that information out there.

That's to say nothing about what it would do to our appeal and credibility in the current conference realignment shuffle. If we raised $39 million before breaking ground... That's a very good sign for our financial future.

I'm not sure what Dr. B said, but if we had done what you're asking about, it would be big, big news.

[UNTflyer]

Hmm. Interesting. So people are bashing this "check facts" guy but nobody is refuting the claim. So bottom line here is extremely discouraging at least in my estimation. We have more money but jack squat in terms of donations to cover the cost of the stadium.

That's not true. The suites are almost all sold out and they required a $100,000 donation to the stadium fund. Between the suites and the club level seats, we're talking almost $11 million (NOT counting the actual annual price of the seats or suites).

[Stan R]

That's not true. The suites are almost all sold out and they required a $100,000 donation to the stadium fund. Between the suites and the club level seats, we're talking almost $11 million (NOT counting the actual annual price of the seats or suites).

Ok, fine, so we have 11 million. That is an impressive amount. Now where is the other $28,000,000.00 ??

[Stan R]

I'm almost expecting the AD to bring out a breifcase full of sticky notes that say "IOU" on them. If anyone has seen Dumb and Dumber you'll know what I mean.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Stan R

[Mean Green 93-98]

Ok, fine, so we have 11 million. That is an impressive amount. Now where is the other $28,000,000.00 ??

Settle down. Wow. The students passed a fee to pay for half of the stadium, Flyer just told us of another source providing 11M, and some people feel like we still have to carry the weight of the world on our shoulders. Obviously, we do not have the entire $78M in hand right now. But I believe I had heard we were somewhere in the vicinity of 3-4M raised before suites and club level seats even began to be offered. It's probably more than that now, and that's just in straight donations. That ought to put us around 23M still needed, which is why we're selling naming rights to the stadium. We may not have it all now, but it will be paid for.

[Stan R]

Settle down. Wow. The students passed a fee to pay for half of the stadium, Flyer just told us of another source providing 11M, and some people feel like we still have to carry the weight of the world on our shoulders. Obviously, we do not have the entire $78M in hand right now. But I believe I had heard we were somewhere in the vicinity of 3-4M raised before suites and club level seats even began to be offered. It's probably more than that now, and that's just in straight donations. That ought to put us around 23M still needed, which is why we're selling naming rights to the stadium. We may not have it all now, but it will be paid for.

The original point of this thread had nothing to do with the question of whether or not this will be paid for or not. I have no doubt that with the debt service and donations, etc. that the stadium will be paid for in full. The question here revolves around whether or not we will see any increase to the operating budget for the athletic department. There was some talk of a significant increase to the amount of money available to fund coaching salaries, specifically for football.

Early on in this process certain people brought out the notion that we would see large increases to operating budget (in the millions) since only half of the new money coming in from student fees would be in the 6 million range. The thought was that say 3 million of that would go to pay the debt payments and around half of that would go to increasing the operating budget of the athletic department, a huge boost that would affect the quality of coaching staff that we could hire.

Now I see that checkfacts is challenging that and I have not seen anything (still) that can argue that he is incorrect in that assumption. Maybe we will never know the answer but I was under the impression that some people had some information to argue against check facts. All I'm seeing right now is people are throwing checkfacts under the bus. I don't see any reason behind it. What am I missing? IF we just don't know then let's say - we just don't know.

If that is the case then all we can say is that checkfacts is just speculating based on a hunch, and so are we.

[drex]

I agree with KRAM that we must all step up to the plate and participate as our money and consciences allow. However, that being said, how long has it been since anyone from the athletic department contacted you about giving money to athletics? They have a bunch of fundraisers on salary, but precious little presence in the lives of the donor base--be it potential or firm.

[UNTflyer]

CheckFacts is 10 pounds of speculation in a 5-lb sack.

First off, her numbers are whack. When the fee kicks in, we should have about 37,000 students if the average over the past few years holds steady. Second, the net increase is more than $7, it's actually about $7.65. She claims we'll only have $9.2 million extra from the fee. It's more like $10.6 million. Initially. Doesn't sound like much but that's a difference of 13%.

Also, the fee can be increased by the Board of Regents. "Will it?" is the unknown here. Does this BOR have the stones to fund the program the way it should be, or will they let the fee lay there at $10/hr?

The fact is that CheckFacts is a Debbie Downer, and she always has been. She said the students would never vote for the stadium. Then she said the BOR wouldn't approve it without money in hand. Then she said the legislature would absolutely not approve it. Yet here we are.

[UNTflyer]

And let's assume CheckFacts is right.

We have a $78 million stadium bonded for, let's say 20 years. Can UNT get 5.5% rate? In this economy and their credit rating, absolutely!

A construction bond with $5 million down would result in monthly installments of $502,000 and some change. That's $6.02 million a year. The fee can only pay half (as she is so fond of pointing out) so that means the fee can only pay $3.01 million per year for 20 years.

Depending on whose math you want to believe, that's either $6.19M or $7.59M extra in our pockets per year.

[Stan R]

And let's assume CheckFacts is right.

We have a $78 million stadium bonded for, let's say 20 years. Can UNT get 5.5% rate? In this economy and their credit rating, absolutely!

A construction bond with $5 million down would result in monthly installments of $502,000 and some change. That's $6.02 million a year. The fee can only pay half (as she is so fond of pointing out) so that means the fee can only pay $3.01 million per year for 20 years.

Depending on whose math you want to believe, that's either $6.19M or $7.59M extra in our pockets per year.

Thanks Flyer, that was what I was looking for.

[GrandGreen]

As I have indicated several times in these forums, it is hazy at best what the new athletic fee will or will not do. The point of these posts was to caution over enthusiastic fans about bragging about all the increased millions of dollars NT is going to have once the new student athlete fee as kicked in. My recollection is that the student fee use is limited to 50% of the construction costs of the new football stadium. Like the student recreation center, once those costs are gone; the fee will be eliminated and not one cent will go to the athletic operating budget.

The truth is that the NT students athletic fee election was not like those passed at UTSA and TSUSM were they approved fees for major increases to their athletic budgets. However, some how that NT election has morphed into the belief that these athletic funds can not only be used for other purposes but they will increase to the state's supposed limit of $20 a hour. Is that a plan or some one's dream? Yes, I believe the BOR has the power to unilaterally enact additional fees but, that is far from a done deal.

There is a fear that the stadium will end up actually putting a strain on the athletic budget not the other way around. The issue is were will the other estimated $39M construction cost come from. It has been disheartening at least to me that I have heard of no big donations or sponsorship agreements. Yes, new revenue streams such as suites will be initiated and donations and sponsorships should be much more attractive with a new stadium. It will be sad, however if all these new or enhanced revenues end up going to debt service and not increasing NT's athletic budget.

I would assume the Administration and BOR had a plan to raise these dollars without destroying athletics at NT. I hope the extension of RV's contract by the BOR signals that all is well. However, their handling of the Dr. Bataille situation causes some doubts.