Lou Nanne to lead University of Minnesota Athletics Facilities Campaign

Donate To GopherHole
vagopher said:
Gopher Warrior said:
Northwestern can achieve their goal - it's reasonable for them. They just have not done it yet as Nanne suggests.

Minnesota's goal and project timeline is not reasonable.[/QU


With only 19 Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state, the nation's fifth fastest growing economy, per capita income at or near 10th in the nation, and one of the largest number of alumni in the country, I can't imagine why the U would think they could raise $190 million for a sports facility.
Click to expand...

I can. The Gophers aren't the big draw in town. We're not a powerhouse, so the ticket isn't a hot one.

Minnesota has four other professional sports, a great arts scene, and good restaurants compared to nearly all the other universities. You have to look at this as an entertainment dollars problem. People in Minnesota have many different ways to entertain themselves. Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, and others don't.

Combine it all together, and it is more daunting than you realize. Many of those fortune 500s you cite give to museums, orchestras (when they're not locked out), the Guthrie, and the pro sports.

When you're not the only game in town or the big fish in town, it's hard to make hay.
Click to expand...
 

Why doesn't the B1G as a conference offer its members low/no interest loans for capital facilities improvements a la the NFL with its owners? Seems to me if the conference set aside a certain percentage of its BTN revenues (or other TV deals) to help its schools in the facilities arms race it would improve the B1G as an entity, improve the quality of the competition relative to other conferences, and make the Network all that more valuable. If the U could get an advance from the conference in terms of a loan, they could get shovels in the ground far more quickly than having to raise a good chunk of it through fundraising.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
vagopher said:
I can. The Gophers aren't the big draw in town. We're not a powerhouse, so the ticket isn't a hot one.

Minnesota has four other professional sports, a great arts scene, and good restaurants compared to nearly all the other universities. You have to look at this as an entertainment dollars problem. People in Minnesota have many different ways to entertain themselves. Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, and others don't.

Combine it all together, and it is more daunting than you realize. Many of those fortune 500s you cite give to museums, orchestras (when they're not locked out), the Guthrie, and the pro sports.

When you're not the only game in town or the big fish in town, it's hard to make hay.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is a great deal of competition for donor dollars in the Twin Cities. which in my opinion is a good thing. It speaks to the cultural richness of the area. And I don't discount the challenge the U faces in its attempt to raise $190 million in light of that competition, but to suggest that that attempt is unreasonable I believe is unduly pessimistic. I doubt there is any less competition for Northwestern Alumni donations, and I doubt that Northwestern has a huge advantage in terms of the total wealth its alumni have in comparison to the U especially given the much larger number of Minnesota Alums. But in any event, the U will never raise that kind of money unless it makes the attempt, and I don't think it helps the cause for Gopher fans to question the likelihood that the U will be able to achieve its goal. I'm not willing to throw in the towel and accept mediocrity. We've struggled too long competitively because of the lack of U Administration support and investment in our major sports programs. We now have a University President and an AD who seem to want to change that. I think they deserve our support.
Click to expand...
 

BleedGopher said:
per Shooter:

That was Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany at the Minneapolis Club on Tuesday morning for Lou Nanne's initial meeting of local business volunteers to find a way to raise $190 million for Gophers athletics facilities improvements. Nanne, a former Gophers hockey star, is heading the funding quest.

Delany impressed those at the gathering with his candor. Gophers administrators also attended.

Meanwhile, T. Denny Sanford, the multimillionaire Minnesota grad who continues to be cultivated by the Gophers as a donor, might be willing to help out for a new football practice facility. But Sanford remains adamant that he'll not be the lead financial contributor for the overall project, and he's not interested in donating for other sports.

http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_24740082/shooter-now-john-gagliardi-loaned-learjet-snag-award

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Jesus, why does Sanford have to be mentioned in every single ****ing article related to this project. He isn't interested in helping his alma mater, big deal, time to move on.
 

I was not aware a timeline has been set. Is there a timeline for these projects?
 


DLguy said:
I was not aware a timeline has been set. Is there a timeline for these projects?
Click to expand...
They'd like to achieve raising the $190MM target in 6 years, I believe by EOY 2019.

However, IMO, anyone using "the timeline is aggressive for that dollar amount" to support their pessimistic argument is kind of a straw man. This isn't a contractual obligation to deliver with some third party (i.e. the fans), so don't treat it personally that way. If they raise $190MM over the next 10 years instead of 6, I can't think of a good reason why we should be upset.

As far as the ability to accomplish the goal they set for themselves, I do feel like it is attainable so long as both Football and Basketball are competitive, which all signs through almost 3 years with Kill and early on with Pitino point to being highly likely. This market's challenge is actually also a positive, as others have alluded, because it means people are willing and used to parting with their money.

Quite frankly, I don't understand some people's pessimism about being able to sell college athletics vs. professional. Norwood and company have a lot of angles they can use to sell their vision, most notably the ability to impact student life vs. putting money in a billionaire's pocket. Also, there's a big distinction between "donors" and "corporate sponsors." Pro sports don't have donors, just merely rich people who buy rich people seats. That doesn't take make those people unapproachable. Furthermore, corporate sponsors may be easily swayed by the clout that pro sports carries, but at the end of the day, those are deals are done using personal relationships and not cold business decisions. It may be more difficult in certain instances, but again, it doest make them unapproachable. Plus, CEO's can also be donors, since they still have copious personal money.
 

Personally, I'm very indifferent to this facilities project. I think it is a huge waste of money that will have a marginal return on investment, but I'm a Gophers rube so that hope of a return on investment keeps me on the fence for this project. Even if it is privately financed, the public is going to end up picking up the maintenance and staffing tab in perpetuity. Don't kid yourself. The money is for the buildings. Guess who gets to hire all the staff and pay the heating bills and such for these places? You guessed it, we do. Now I'm typically in favor of increased funding for many things, but I'm not really in favor of this kind of spending that will be labeled as "education spending." All of this, in the hope of getting better players and winning more games in a fair-weather-fan town due to the abundance of entertainment options.

I think it's also worth noting that there U will need way more than $190 million. The price of materials and labor aren't locked in. Inflation, material costs, and labor will all likely increase significantly in six years. There's no way this project doesn't cost well more than $220 million, unless I'm missing something.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Personally, I'm very indifferent to this facilities project. I think it is a huge waste of money that will have a marginal return on investment, but I'm a Gophers rube so that hope of a return on investment keeps me on the fence for this project. Even if it is privately financed, the public is going to end up picking up the maintenance and staffing tab in perpetuity. Don't kid yourself. The money is for the buildings. Guess who gets to hire all the staff and pay the heating bills and such for these places? You guessed it, we do. Now I'm typically in favor of increased funding for many things, but I'm not really in favor of this kind of spending that will be labeled as "education spending." All of this, in the hope of getting better players and winning more games in a fair-weather-fan town due to the abundance of entertainment options.

I think it's also worth noting that there U will need way more than $190 million. The price of materials and labor aren't locked in. Inflation, material costs, and labor will all likely increase significantly in six years. There's no way this project doesn't cost well more than $220 million, unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

You are right, let's reduce our facilities to save money on heat and AC. I think we could get by with just TCF and Williams. They used to play hockey at Williams so we don't need Ritter or Mariucci. I mean, imagine how much money we are wasting keeping TWO!!! ice rinks cold, all the time!!!!1!!
 

MadtownGopher said:
You are right, let's reduce our facilities to save money on heat and AC. I think we could get by with just TCF and Williams. They used to play hockey at Williams so we don't need Ritter or Mariucci. I mean, imagine how much money we are wasting keeping TWO!!! ice rinks cold, all the time!!!!1!!
Click to expand...

As a lawyer I'm sure you're aware that your analogy is very flawed, but your point is taken.

That still doesn't disprove or prove that the facilities are a good thing. It's an arms race for the hope of better outcomes with no empirical proof that these outcomes will occur. More is not always better. Medicine is a great example of this. We have more MRIs than are necessary in the Twin Cities. But people bought them for prestige and to make money, not to make better health outcomes. The more MRI machines you have, the more the hospitals need to use them in order to recoup the cost of purchasing and maintenance and the more doctors will prescribe them in order to line their pockets (a flat $1,000 per doctor per MRI was about the standard a few years ago). All this does is add to the cost of healthcare without making people healthier.

There are countless other examples of where excess does more harm than good. There are also examples of where excess does more good than harm. I see no evidence that the excess will do more good than harm. Thus, I'm not gung-ho for the facilities, but I'm risk averse.

You're either more inclined to risk, more informed about the evidence of better sporting outcomes due to modern facilities than I am, or you're a rube who takes what is sold by the Gophers' athletic department on faith. I suppose you could be a combination of things as well. Frankly, I don't care.

However, if you do have the evidence that building these facilities will bring better outcomes then please share it. I haven't seen anything other than conjecture from people who are clearly biased.

Keeping up with the Jones' isn't a valid reason to do this. If not building the facilities will lead to worse outcomes, then that is a reason to build. If building the facilities leads to better outcomes then that is a reason to build. However, if our outcomes aren't changed at all be either building or not building, then we'd be foolish to build.
 



Please cite one example of an athletic department succeeding/benefiting from not improving their outdated facilities. The Gophers are already the laughingstock of the Big Ten in regards to athletic facilities. We are in no way even close to having "excess." Even after the $190 million project is complete, we'd still have facilities closer to the average than something that would be considered "excessive."
 

MadtownGopher said:
Please cite one example of an athletic department succeeding/benefiting from not improving their outdated facilities. The Gophers are already the laughingstock of the Big Ten in regards to athletic facilities. We are in no way even close to having "excess." Even after the $190 million project is complete, we'd still have facilities closer to the average than something that would be considered "excessive."
Click to expand...

Sorry, the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend the money Madtown. If you want things to be paid for, you have to prove that building is beneficial, not neutral or negative. I don't know what world you live in, but when people give up their money, it is the responsibility of the people who receive that money to offer proof of a benefit. At least, that's how responsible investors would act.

In fact, I dare you to go to the partner or partners in your firm and make a similar argument. Tell them that if they invest in client recruiting that they will make more money than they do right now. Tell them to find an example of a firm who invested in client recruiting that didn't improve their business. If they're not able to, then tell them they should invest that money. See how fast you get reprimanded or fired. You need to bring the data and evidence if you want the money kid.

If there is any empirical data that shows a benefit then let's do it. Anecdotes aren't good enough. Neither are promises or hopes.
 

Your scenario doesn't really make sense, but funny you ask. I work for a medium sized business and we just added a multimillion dollar facility in a territory that we already controlled; to enhance our facilities, serve our customers more adequately, and improve the image of our business. We brought in a number of highly skilled and experienced employees from our rivals in the area.

You are a fool if you think keeping our facilities status quo is the best route for the athletic department. I always thought you were a troll and now I'm even more convinced. No Gopher fan would be in favor of halting any facility improvements. I'm done discussing this.
 

MadtownGopher said:
Your scenario doesn't really make sense, but funny you ask. I work for a medium sized business and we just added a multimillion dollar facility in a territory that we already controlled; to enhance our facilities, serve our customers more adequately, and improve the image of our business. We brought in a number of highly skilled and experienced employees from our rivals in the area.

You are a fool if you think keeping our facilities status quo is the best route for the athletic department. I always thought you were a troll and now I'm even more convinced. No Gopher fan would be in favor of halting any facility improvements. I'm done discussing this.
Click to expand...

You're hilarious. You call people names and you make assertions with no justification or proof. You can definitely be a Gophers fan and be against a facilities plan. You don't have to like it, but you sure can be.

Some of us are able to separate our fanaticism outside of the games being played. You need to learn to think critically and ask questions in all matters in life Madtown. I love my wife, but she doesn't get things she wants just because she says she needs them. I love the Gophers, but not giving them everything they want doesn't mean I'm not a fan.

You need to grow up and learn how to communicate and present an argument.

I never made any of this personal with you, nor do I have anything personally against you. However, if appears that you are unable to handle ideas that you disagree with, at least when it comes to the Gophers. This isn't a place for a circle jerk Madtown, although you apparently want it to be.
 



Your whole argument is pointless. This project is being funded privately. The school isn't asking for $190 million in tax payer money. They will get money from people who see the project as beneficial.

You mention utilities and staff costs. Do you really think utilities/staff would be too much to warrant such an improvement to the U's facilities? Facilities that are already at the bottom of the Big Ten, both because thy are lacking in capacity and upkeep. This is a fact. I don't see how the U would benefit by allowing their facilities to deteriorate even more. Maybe you can help me out here.

Do you really believe the U hasn't weighed the pros and cons of this facilities plan? You keep asking for proof that it would improve the U. You don't offer any evidence suggesting that it would harm the U, especially considering it is being funded privately. What do you have against the U raising money to improve its facilities, because it's quite clear you are not in favor of it. Are you just a contrarian for the hell of it? Are you one of those people that hates college athletics? Or are you a troll, it seems like your posts are mostly negative, both in game threads and threads like this one.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
You're hilarious. You call people names and you make assertions with no justification or proof. You can definitely be a Gophers fan and be against a facilities plan. You don't have to like it, but you sure can be.

Some of us are able to separate our fanaticism outside of the games being played. You need to learn to think critically and ask questions in all matters in life Madtown. I love my wife, but she doesn't get things she wants just because she says she needs them. I love the Gophers, but not giving them everything they want doesn't mean I'm not a fan.

You need to grow up and learn how to communicate and present an argument.

I never made any of this personal with you, nor do I have anything personally against you. However, if appears that you are unable to handle ideas that you disagree with, at least when it comes to the Gophers. This isn't a place for a circle jerk Madtown, although you apparently want it to be.
Click to expand...

Why didn't one of your four paragraphs address his first paragraph?
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Sorry, the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend the money Madtown. If you want things to be paid for, you have to prove that building is beneficial, not neutral or negative. I don't know what world you live in, but when people give up their money, it is the responsibility of the people who receive that money to offer proof of a benefit. At least, that's how responsible investors would act.

In fact, I dare you to go to the partner or partners in your firm and make a similar argument. Tell them that if they invest in client recruiting that they will make more money than they do right now. Tell them to find an example of a firm who invested in client recruiting that didn't improve their business. If they're not able to, then tell them they should invest that money. See how fast you get reprimanded or fired. You need to bring the data and evidence if you want the money kid.

If there is any empirical data that shows a benefit then let's do it. Anecdotes aren't good enough. Neither are promises or hopes.
Click to expand...

Calling a grown person kid seems like an insult to me. Unless you're on the Jersey Shore. You make things personal when you try to insult people.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Sorry, the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend the money Madtown. If you want things to be paid for, you have to prove that building is beneficial, not neutral or negative. I don't know what world you live in, but when people give up their money, it is the responsibility of the people who receive that money to offer proof of a benefit. At least, that's how responsible investors would act.

In fact, I dare you to go to the partner or partners in your firm and make a similar argument. Tell them that if they invest in client recruiting that they will make more money than they do right now. Tell them to find an example of a firm who invested in client recruiting that didn't improve their business. If they're not able to, then tell them they should invest that money. See how fast you get reprimanded or fired. You need to bring the data and evidence if you want the money kid.

If there is any empirical data that shows a benefit then let's do it. Anecdotes aren't good enough. Neither are promises or hopes.
Click to expand...

There may be valid reasons to question some of the items on the $190 million list. But I've never heard anyone dispute the fact that we desperately need a basketball practice facility or that eventual upgrades will be needed to the Barn. Are you really suggesting that those items are not needed? As for utilities and staffing, why would these costs be higher in the new facilities than they are now? If anything some of those costs would fall. We can't build new facilities because of utility costs...now I've heard everything.
 

MadtownGopher said:
Jesus, why does Sanford have to be mentioned in every single ****ing article related to this project. He isn't interested in helping his alma mater, big deal, time to move on.
Click to expand...

You post he is not interested in helping his alma mater after quoting this from the story...?

Meanwhile, T. Denny Sanford, the multimillionaire Minnesota grad who continues to be cultivated by the Gophers as a donor, might be willing to help out for a new football practice facility
 

AeroGopher said:
They'd like to achieve raising the $190MM target in 6 years, I believe by EOY 2019.

However, IMO, anyone using "the timeline is aggressive for that dollar amount" to support their pessimistic argument is kind of a straw man. This isn't a contractual obligation to deliver with some third party (i.e. the fans), so don't treat it personally that way. If they raise $190MM over the next 10 years instead of 6, I can't think of a good reason why we should be upset.
Click to expand...

I agree and I don't put to much emphasis on the 'so-called' 6 years timeline.
 

katze019 said:
You post he is not interested in helping his alma mater after quoting this from the story...?

Meanwhile, T. Denny Sanford, the multimillionaire Minnesota grad who continues to be cultivated by the Gophers as a donor, might be willing to help out for a new football practice facility
Click to expand...

This is his way of not contributing. He knows the U has a comprehensive $190 million project that they are going ahead with. That project includes a football practice facility. If he really wanted to help the football program he could contribute to the project. He doesn't do this though because he wants things to be done his way, just like the TCF Stadium thing. He has also, more than once, said he is not interested in contributing any money the U at this time. This is all old news, we don't need him mentioned in every single update.
 

MadtownGopher said:
That project includes a football practice facility. If he really wanted to help the football program he could contribute to the project.
Click to expand...

What you wrote makes no sense.

He would be contributing to the project, he just wants to have his dollars go to a specific portion. If he only cares about football, then great, tell him his money is going to that portion of the project.
 

katze019 said:
What you wrote makes no sense.

He would be contributing to the project, he just wants to have his dollars go to a specific portion. If he only cares about football, then great, tell him his money is going to that portion of the project.
Click to expand...

The way I understand the project is that they are going to be building one HUGE facility. It isn't like there will be a separate football-only building that is a part of an athletic campus. Thus, it is impossible for him to only contribute to the football team.
 

MadtownGopher said:
The way I understand the project is that they are going to be building one HUGE facility. It isn't like there will be a separate football-only building that is a part of an athletic campus. Thus, it is impossible for him to only contribute to the football team.
Click to expand...

Then you truly have no understanding of the project.

The football practice facility can and will be a separate portion of the building, one that he could contribute to quite easily.

You think a new football only complex (indoor and outdoor) is cheap? The two outdoor fields would be stand alone and the indoor field (one level w/ the highest roof line) would likely have it's own metal beam walls on all four sides as a stand alone shell that the other portion of the building would tie into. I would guess they get their own locker rooms, possibly separate weight room and other football only amenity rooms/areas.
 

katze019 said:
Then you truly have no understanding of the project.

The football practice facility can and will be a separate portion of the building, one that he could contribute to quite easily.

You think a new football only complex (indoor and outdoor) is cheep? The two outdoor fields would be stand alone and the indoor field (one level w/ the highest roof line) would likely have it's own metal beam walls on all four sides as a stand alone shell that the other portion of the building would tie into. I would guess they get their own locker rooms, possibly separate weight room and other football only amenity rooms/areas.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then why hasn't good old Sanford contributed anything?
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Sorry, the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend the money Madtown. If you want things to be paid for, you have to prove that building is beneficial, not neutral or negative. I don't know what world you live in, but when people give up their money, it is the responsibility of the people who receive that money to offer proof of a benefit. At least, that's how responsible investors would act.

In fact, I dare you to go to the partner or partners in your firm and make a similar argument. Tell them that if they invest in client recruiting that they will make more money than they do right now. Tell them to find an example of a firm who invested in client recruiting that didn't improve their business. If they're not able to, then tell them they should invest that money. See how fast you get reprimanded or fired. You need to bring the data and evidence if you want the money kid.

If there is any empirical data that shows a benefit then let's do it. Anecdotes aren't good enough. Neither are promises or hopes.
Click to expand...

Courts allocate burdens of proof for policy reasons (I'm a lawyer too), but I'm not sure there is a good policy reason to place the burden of proving the need for an upgrade of sports training facilities on those who believe that an upgrade of such facilities is needed to remain competitive in intercollegiate sports. I understand that we should not be spending donor money on capital improvements that we don't need. But how do we know that they are not needed? If there are studies that tell us that, then I would agree that we should not be wasting donor money on such facilities. But I very much doubt that there is any such study, and logic suggests that the contrary is true. I believe that recruits are influenced by the quality of facilities, and recruits are the life blood of any athletic program. Moreover, I believe that quality training facilities can promote player development, such as providing 24/7 access to weight rooms and practice facilities. In the absence of convincing proof to the contrary, I don't think we can afford to take the risk that the proposed faculties are not needed.
 

MadtownGopher said:
If that's the case then why hasn't good old Sanford contributed anything?
Click to expand...

It's been well documented the tension between the UofM and Stanford after the merger fell through (you can research that yourself).

Doesn't mean they shouldn't keep greasing the wheels on a billionaire that is passionate about the football program. It may take time, but it's worth pursuing.
 

I bet more wins and better bowls will help him decide to open up that big wallet a little more.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Sorry, the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend the money Madtown. If you want things to be paid for, you have to prove that building is beneficial, not neutral or negative. I don't know what world you live in, but when people give up their money, it is the responsibility of the people who receive that money to offer proof of a benefit. At least, that's how responsible investors would act.

In fact, I dare you to go to the partner or partners in your firm and make a similar argument. Tell them that if they invest in client recruiting that they will make more money than they do right now. Tell them to find an example of a firm who invested in client recruiting that didn't improve their business. If they're not able to, then tell them they should invest that money. See how fast you get reprimanded or fired. You need to bring the data and evidence if you want the money kid.

If there is any empirical data that shows a benefit then let's do it. Anecdotes aren't good enough. Neither are promises or hopes.
Click to expand...

Donating money to a school (be it for academics or sports) is not a logical process where one should expect any tangible ROI, other than, perhaps, the ego boost that comes with having your name on a building. It's an emotional one, and anyone who is stupid enough to look at a donation as an investment would make me question how they got rich in the first place. Wealthy boosters (after all, that's who we're talking about here, not the $100 donors) ultimately define the benefits they receive by their donation, like the good feeling they get by showing gratitude for a good education that helped them to succeed, a desire (a la Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State or Phil Knight at Oregon) to create a superior athletics program through new facilities, endowed scholarships, etc., or the need to leave a permanent legacy through a monument to oneself.
 

per Sid:

Teague starts fundraising

Gophers athletic director Norwood Teague brought Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany to town Monday night. Delany met with one potential group of contributors to the Gophers program for dinner on Monday, then met with another group for breakfast the next day. Delany sold some boosters on writing checks to make improvements to campus athletic facilities.

“Oh yeah, we’ve definitely raised some money,” said Teague, trying to raise $190 million for facilities upgrades. “We’re in, as they say, the silent phase right now. We plan to kick things off after the first of the year in January or February in an official way. The response has been good and I’m really happy about where we are and where we’re going.”

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/236893801.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue

Go Gophers!!
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom