Teague on Us fundraising: Things have been very good. I’m excited about the prospects

Donate To GopherHole
bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I don't have a lot of trust for our athletic department's administration. This is the same group that gave out thousands of free hot dog coupons for a football game, and didn't realize that it might effect the number of hot dog orders enough to make it worth telling the people who provide and cook the hot dogs. Regardless of how big of a tragedy fans not getting hot dogs was, that simple lack of reasoning, foresight, and communication is just horrendous.
Click to expand...

Aramark wasn't notified? Source?

----------------------------------------------

Aramark is the devil

By John Hoff, Minnesota Daily March 03, 2008

Some of the first columns I wrote on this campus, starting in fall of 2005, were about Aramark's control of University Dining Service.

I knew their decade-long contract wouldn't expire for a few more years, but it was necessary to lay the groundwork for eventual change by sticking out my neck and writing "What's behind your lunch" Parts One through Five.

But now it is crunch time. Now recommendations will soon be issued by a committee. Hopefully, the consensus will be to cast Aramark far from this campus and sprinkle holy water on all the surfaces and objects they have touched. I say this as a former loyal Aramark employee who was never been harmed or cheated in any way, but I was in a position to see and hear plenty.

Yet I have to wonder why would this University make deals and bargains with the devil in the first place? The facts about Aramark are not a secret. The nature of the devil is well known.

These are not the kind of people who should be behind our lunch.
 



Gopher Warrior said:
Thank you, kind sir, for another GH lesson on hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

You see, that would be true if I only posted snarky or self-flagellating messages. You're the only person here who is self-flagellating. As for snarky, guilty as charged. However, I post many things that aren't snarky so I don't fit the bill.

Good attempt though.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
You see, that would be true if I only posted snarky or self-flagellating messages. You're the only person here who is self-flagellating. As for snarky, guilty as charged. However, I post many things that aren't snarky so I don't fit the bill.

Good attempt though.
Click to expand...

What exactly is a self-flagellating message?
 




Trying to get back to the original point of the thread -
Lou Nanne was on Sid's radio show today, and he said flat-out that the Gophers have the worst facilities in the B1G.

I am not a fund-raising expert, but it appears to me that Teague is trying to take a long-term approaching to fundraising and facilities. As far as the feasibility study, it seems logical that, if you're going to be hitting up bigwigs for big bucks, it would be helpful to show them how their donation fits into the big picture. It's easy to say, "do the basketball facility first," but you have to consider how that project fits with/impacts the other projects. In other words, the big donors want to see that the U has a plan, and isn't going at this willy-nilly.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Trying to get back to the original point of the thread -
Lou Nanne was on Sid's radio show today, and he said flat-out that the Gophers have the worst facilities in the B1G.

I am not a fund-raising expert, but it appears to me that Teague is trying to take a long-term approaching to fundraising and facilities. As far as the feasibility study, it seems logical that, if you're going to be hitting up bigwigs for big bucks, it would be helpful to show them how their donation fits into the big picture. It's easy to say, "do the basketball facility first," but you have to consider how that project fits with/impacts the other projects. In other words, the big donors want to see that the U has a plan, and isn't going at this willy-nilly.
Click to expand...

Lou(and others) has been saying that for quite awhile.

I do agree with your point. By presenting a comprehensive all-sports plan you cultivate support from the non revenue sports programs(and more importantly their DONORS).

It's an all for one thing. Hopefully certain parts can be implemented first.

As far as the feasibility, I have no idea. Hope we hear something soon.
 



Do we actually have worse facilities than Northwestern? For some reason, I thought they didn't have a practice facility too.
 

station19 said:
Lou(and others) has been saying that for quite awhile.

I do agree with your point. By presenting a comprehensive all-sports plan you cultivate support from the non revenue sports programs(and more importantly their DONORS).

It's an all for one thing. Hopefully certain parts can be implemented first.

As far as the feasibility, I have no idea. Hope we hear something soon.
Click to expand...

Correct. It's an omnibus spending spree. This happens all the time. Things, or in this case sports, that don't get headlines need upgrades. However, they get no attention, so it's hard to find the money for them. So you use the leverage of the big time sports by packaging their needs with the needs of the lesser sports. It's the only way to address the lesser sports effectively.
 

The Gopher Report said:
Do we actually have worse facilities than Northwestern? For some reason, I thought they didn't have a practice facility too.
Click to expand...

Northwestern does have a basketball practice facility. You can access it without going outside through Welsh-Ryan Arena.

I checked it out this fall.. nothing fancy, but does the job. Some pics I took:
rWPWqeW.jpg

RHo7APm.jpg

Q4XytnO.jpg
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Correct. It's an omnibus spending spree. This happens all the time. Things, or in this case sports, that don't get headlines need upgrades. However, they get no attention, so it's hard to find the money for them. So you use the leverage of the big time sports by packaging their needs with the needs of the lesser sports. It's the only way to address the lesser sports effectively.
Click to expand...

The old timers around these parts used to say something to the effect that a new house builds nothing, a new barn will build a new house. The moral of the story was that it was more prudent to invest in money making needs rather than non-revenue wants. I'm sure the collective coaches and administrators would like to brag of $190 million in athletic facilities improvements. However, as others have pointed out, the U has been unable to find $15 million for a single facility, let alone a global facilities solution, and it remains to be seen whether a ten fold increase in "wants" will get the U any closer to having the necessary facilities for the revenue sports.

The U should concentrate on facilities for football and hoops. Those programs, if successful, will serve as the "barn" that will build houses for other programs. It may not sit well on this board, but we have too many nonrevenue sports and if we can't afford them, they should go. Baseball included,
 



Swede said:
The old timers around these parts used to say something to the effect that a new house builds nothing, a new barn will build a new house. The moral of the story was that it was more prudent to invest in money making needs rather than non-revenue wants. I'm sure the collective coaches and administrators would like to brag of $190 million in athletic facilities improvements. However, as others have pointed out, the U has been unable to find $15 million for a single facility, let alone a global facilities solution, and it remains to be seen whether a ten fold increase in "wants" will get the U any closer to having the necessary facilities for the revenue sports.

The U should concentrate on facilities for football and hoops. Those programs, if successful, will serve as the "barn" that will build houses for other programs. It may not sit well on this board, but we have too many nonrevenue sports and if we can't afford them, they should go. Baseball included,
Click to expand...


Ok, I'll bite. Say we decide getting rid of some of the non-revenue sports is the decision that's made, then which sports would you feel it would be justified to drop?
 

PartoPitinosPosse said:
Ok, I'll bite. Say we decide getting rid of some of the non-revenue sports is the decision that's made, then which sports would you feel it would be justified to drop?
Click to expand...

Hockey. I think Marriucci would make a great practice facility.

Just Kidding.
 

Swede said:
Baseball included,
Click to expand...

Good luck Swede, I made the suggestion about Baseball when we were spending $15 mil on the new field and got blasted. Too late on BB since we spent $7.5 mil already.
 


Gopher Warrior said:
Northwestern does have a basketball practice facility. You can access it without going outside through Welsh-Ryan Arena.

I checked it out this fall.. nothing fancy, but does the job. Some pics I took:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the photos. Would think this would qualify as better than our closet....
 

PartoPitinosPosse said:
Ok, I'll bite. Say we decide getting rid of some of the non-revenue sports is the decision that's made, then which sports would you feel it would be justified to drop?
Click to expand...

I frankly don't care which sports. I only specifically mentioned baseball because it is probably the most prominent non-revenue sport, it spends most of its season indoors or down south, yet there is an ongoing drive to improve the baseball field on campus.

What I find most remarkable is that the University has a wonderful revenue stream coming from the BIG 10 network, yet it can't tap that revenue stream to support the programs generate this windfall? Why can't the U bond for basketball and football facilities using network revenue to pay back the bonds?
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Northwestern does have a basketball practice facility. You can access it without going outside through Welsh-Ryan Arena.

I checked it out this fall.. nothing fancy, but does the job. Some pics I took:
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing the pictures, man. They're illuminating.

I'm a little puzzled by all the comments that seem to suggest we should stop trying to raise $190 mil and concentrate on the basketball practice facility instead. Why can't we raise $190 and spend the first chunk on the practice facility? :confused:
 

everybody knows my name said:
Thanks for sharing the pictures, man. They're illuminating.

I'm a little puzzled by all the comments that seem to suggest we should stop trying to raise $190 mil and concentrate on the basketball practice facility instead. Why can't we raise $190 and spend the first chunk on the practice facility? :confused:
Click to expand...

That would be fine. But to date we've had a pie-in-the-sky "hey,, uhh, $190MM guys! We don't what our priorities are.. and uhh, we're going to have a third party tell us if raising that type of money is even possible... " and then silence for another half year.

A nonsense plan of $190MM is silly no matter what, but if you have some priorities and thoughts, and true vision and plans around it.. then things can get done. Haven't seen any of that to date.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Good luck Swede, I made the suggestion about Baseball when we were spending $15 mil on the new field and got blasted. Too late on BB since we spent $7.5 mil already.
Click to expand...

Glen Perkins and the Minnesota Twins, among others, would've donated to a basketball practice facility instead of a baseball stadium? Interesting.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
A nonsense plan of $190MM is silly no matter what, but if you have some priorities and thoughts, and true vision and plans around it.. then things can get done. Haven't seen any of that to date.
Click to expand...

You think they threw out that $190 million figure several months ago and have just been playing with their dicks since then? Do you honestly think they don't have "priorities and thoughts, and true vision and plans" for the project? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not their job to keep you informed every step of the way; it's their job to make sure it gets done in the end.
 

matt said:
You think they threw out that $190 million figure several months ago and have just been playing with their dicks since then? Do you honestly think they don't have "priorities and thoughts, and true vision and plans" for the project? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not their job to keep you informed every step of the way; it's their job to make sure it gets done in the end.
Click to expand...

I've played with my dick countless times since they threw out the $190M number. I think it's pretty safe to assume that Teague & Co. have done similar.
 

matt said:
You think they threw out that $190 million figure several months ago and have just been playing with their dicks since then? Do you honestly think they don't have "priorities and thoughts, and true vision and plans" for the project? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not their job to keep you informed every step of the way; it's their job to make sure it gets done in the end.
Click to expand...

I think the $190MM "plan" was thrown out to the board quickly because they hadn't heard anything for a long time. It's now February and the feasibility "study" still isn't done? I don't know what's being played with, but I do not believe it will "get done in the end."
 

Gopher Warrior said:
I think the $190MM "plan" was thrown out to the board quickly because they hadn't heard anything for a long time. It's now February and the feasibility "study" still isn't done? I don't know what's being played with, but I do not believe it will "get done in the end."
Click to expand...

It was? You must have some some insider info?

They have a goal of $190 million. What kind of third-party is going to tell them whether that goal is realistic after six months and be accurate?
 

matt said:
You think they threw out that $190 million figure several months ago and have just been playing with their dicks since then? Do you honestly think they don't have "priorities and thoughts, and true vision and plans" for the project? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's not their job to keep you informed every step of the way; it's their job to make sure it gets done in the end.
Click to expand...

+2 gave you an extra one when I realized the epicness of your picture
 

Swede said:
I frankly don't care which sports. I only specifically mentioned baseball because it is probably the most prominent non-revenue sport, it spends most of its season indoors or down south, yet there is an ongoing drive to improve the baseball field on campus.

What I find most remarkable is that the University has a wonderful revenue stream coming from the BIG 10 network, yet it can't tap that revenue stream to support the programs generate this windfall? Why can't the U bond for basketball and football facilities using network revenue to pay back the bonds?
Click to expand...

Even with all the revenue the U is still not a big profit maker on sports. partly because of all the non-revenue sports sucking on the teet, but that isn't all of it. They have made some bad mistakes and had to borrow money from the U to pay for coaches that aren't here any more and our FB attendance revenue is significantly below our peers (IA, WISC, NE) in the west. In the end, until our alumni start giving at much higher rates for athletics AND we are able to consistently fill an 80,000 seat stadium for home games, we are going to be behind. We don't need to catch tOSU or MI and we never will. We do need to compete money wise with IA, WI & NE and we just aren't right now....not even close.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Even with all the revenue the U is still not a big profit maker on sports. partly because of all the non-revenue sports sucking on the teet, but that isn't all of it. They have made some bad mistakes and had to borrow money from the U to pay for coaches that aren't here any more and our FB attendance revenue is significantly below our peers (IA, WISC, NE) in the west. In the end, until our alumni start giving at much higher rates for athletics AND we are able to consistently fill an 80,000 seat stadium for home games, we are going to be behind. We don't need to catch tOSU or MI and we never will. We do need to compete money wise with IA, WI & NE and we just aren't right now....not even close.
Click to expand...

People need to keep in mind that buy-outs of coaches are part of the game. We are by no means unique to that situation.
 

PartoPitinosPosse said:
Ok, I'll bite. Say we decide getting rid of some of the non-revenue sports is the decision that's made, then which sports would you feel it would be justified to drop?
Click to expand...

Baseball is the obvious one because it is relatively expensive for a non revenue sport, need 18 to 20 partial scholarships, coaching staff not like football but not dirt cheap, lots of travel to warm weather locations in late winter and early spring, it adds up.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom