What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Maybe the whole university won't go private, but why not the AD?

Sounds like a great idea! Nothing like small bits of control to attract fans (and there $$$). It would be nice to feel like you have some say in the direction of the AD. Want to to be heard more, but some more shares.

The Football program would actually be "YOUR TEAM"
I just like the idea cause it could possibly (with some good lawyering) get the AD out from under TABOR and such...
 
I just like the idea cause it could possibly (with some good lawyering) get the AD out from under TABOR and such...

No kidding, wouldn't have to worry about 1 year contracts for AC's, maybe get some facilities built. According to the articale it may only be a symbolic thing but if the AD could get out from under at least some of the School and State Policies and Politics, I think it could be worth while. Sign me up! :thumbsup:
 
I'm not really sure how this would benefit the "shareholders". It sounds like little more than a fundraising campaign to me. Which is fine, but I seriously doubt that the folks who purchase shares will have any real say in the direction of the athletic department.
 
I'm not really sure how this would benefit the "shareholders". It sounds like little more than a fundraising campaign to me. Which is fine, but I seriously doubt that the folks who purchase shares will have any real say in the direction of the athletic department.
guess it depends on how far towards the green bay model they go. Lot's of AD's are separate entities that don't answer to teh school (as far as I know)... This is just one way of doing it, and it even happens to raise $!
 
I'm not really sure how this would benefit the "shareholders". It sounds like little more than a fundraising campaign to me. Which is fine, but I seriously doubt that the folks who purchase shares will have any real say in the direction of the athletic department.

If you are going to donate money anyway, It would be nice to at least have a vote on the Board of Directors and it would be cool to "own" a piece of the Buffs.

I know I have some say by voting for Regents but I would like a vote in who makes Athletic Department desicions and that is their sole purpose.
 
guess it depends on how far towards the green bay model they go. Lot's of AD's are separate entities that don't answer to teh school (as far as I know)... This is just one way of doing it, and it even happens to raise $!

Technically, CU's AD is a separate entity as well, but it still has to answer to the school. All AD's have to answer to the school, regardless of whether they're independent entities or not. They represent the school, and as such, need to be held accountable to the school. Otherwise, it's a semi-pro franchise, not a college team.
 
Technically, CU's AD is a separate entity as well, but it still has to answer to the school. All AD's have to answer to the school, regardless of whether they're independent entities or not. They represent the school, and as such, need to be held accountable to the school. Otherwise, it's a semi-pro franchise, not a college team.
Fair enough. But a certain amount of leeway would be given to major shareholders wouldn't it( to select AD's etc)? Even if it is purely symbolic, I am just wondering if it would get the AD out from under TABOR... (haven't taken Agency or Corporations yet or ever looked at the relevant portion of TABOR, so I don't even have a semi-educated guess).
 
I'll say this - if by purchasing a share in the department I get access to the financials of the department and have access to some kind of annual shareholders meeting where I could air my grievances directly to the people involved, I'd be willing to do that. That would be the benefit to owning some of this "stock". I hesitate to actually call it stock, as it's not any form of marketable security and doesn't represent any actual ownership in the entity.
 
I'm not really sure how this would benefit the "shareholders". It sounds like little more than a fundraising campaign to me. Which is fine, but I seriously doubt that the folks who purchase shares will have any real say in the direction of the athletic department.

That's what it sounds like:

Beyond the pride of contributing and a certificate showing ownership, along with an annual shareholders meeting, Petso says don't expect much more.
"It is just a fancy way of creating another fundraiser," said Petso. "But it's not an investment in anyway shape or form. You're just giving $100 to BSU. That's it. You really don't own part of the team.”

http://www.ktvb.com/news/BSU-to-sell-stock-in-athletics-programs-to-public-69782417.html
 
Fair enough. But a certain amount of leeway would be given to major shareholders wouldn't it( to select AD's etc)? Even if it is purely symbolic, I am just wondering if it would get the AD out from under TABOR... (haven't taken Agency or Corporations yet or ever looked at the relevant portion of TABOR, so I don't even have a semi-educated guess).

Since the AD's salary is paid by the school (state), I don't think the "Board of Directors" will have much influence on those type of decisions. I suspect their level of control is limited to picking carpet colors in future new facilities and where to hold the annual homecoming golf tournament.

Interesting idea, but sounds like a glorified booster club to me.
 
I'm not really sure how this would benefit the "shareholders". It sounds like little more than a fundraising campaign to me. Which is fine, but I seriously doubt that the folks who purchase shares will have any real say in the direction of the athletic department.


A significant number of global professional sports teams use this model effectively.

Article on Real Madrid that illustrates the extreme of this model: http://www.davidbruceallen.com/strategyoped/2006/04/real_madrid_cf_.html
 
I'll say this - if by purchasing a share in the department I get access to the financials of the department and have access to some kind of annual shareholders meeting where I could air my grievances directly to the people involved, I'd be willing to do that. That would be the benefit to owning some of this "stock". I hesitate to actually call it stock, as it's not any form of marketable security and doesn't represent any actual ownership in the entity.

I like how you think, Sacky. Especially the airing if grievances at the shareholders meeting.

"I've got a lot of problems with you people!"

Sign me up!:smile2:
 
Since the AD's salary is paid by the school (state), I don't think the "Board of Directors" will have much influence on those type of decisions. I suspect their level of control is limited to picking carpet colors in future new facilities and where to hold the annual homecoming golf tournament.

Interesting idea, but sounds like a glorified booster club to me.

If you can pay the coaches salaries from new NPO it is well worth it if it gets CU out of the:

a) 1 year contract for assistants Debate

b) "We have the money but can't pull the trigger for political reason" problem when it comes to coaching changes.

Plus even if it is a glorified fundraiser, we need to raise funds.
 
I like how you think, Sacky. Especially the airing if grievances at the shareholders meeting.

"I've got a lot of problems with you people!"

Sign me up!:smile2:

It could be the Festivous for the rest of us. I want to see DBT vs. Hawkins in the test of strength.
 
I really like the idea. Aside from the possibility of getting around TABOR, it would also keep the U from siphoning off surpluses generated by the AD. Not that the AD is actually running a surplus right now. But if it did those surpluses could go towards performance incentives for the staff and/or facilities. :smile2:
 
If CU did do this, I would only want the funds to be used for facilities.

Players and coaches come and go over the years, but facilities upgrades can last for generations and are so expensive that they are the hardest part of fundraising goals to accomplish.

I would be curious as to what the compliance issues would be for having that many "stockholders" involved in the athletic department and the possible recruiting violations from contacts with potential recruits.

I think the "donations" from boosters offer some distance since there is no real obligation back to the donor, but with the purchase of stock and annual meetings, etc. that line might get fuzzy.
 
If CU did do this, I would only want the funds to be used for facilities.

Players and coaches come and go over the years, but facilities upgrades can last for generations and are so expensive that they are the hardest part of fundraising goals to accomplish.

I would be curious as to what the compliance issues would be for having that many "stockholders" involved in the athletic department and the possible recruiting violations from contacts with potential recruits.

I think the "donations" from boosters offer some distance since there is no real obligation back to the donor, but with the purchase of stock and annual meetings, etc. that line might get fuzzy.

Since the "Shares" are more symbolic than an actual ownership or control, i wouldn't see this as a problem. aside from the vote for Board of Directors and a meeting every year its not that different than just making a donation.

As for the Salarie issues, what if only assistants got their pay check from the NPO and the HC still got paid trough the School? Anything to get some of the limitations of of the program.
 
Since the "Shares" are more symbolic than an actual ownership or control, i wouldn't see this as a problem. aside from the vote for Board of Directors and a meeting every year its not that different than just making a donation.

Yep, I understand what they mean in regards to the shares and what the "ownership" means and all that. I am not a lawyer or anywhere close, but there is still more an element of "control" than a typical donation. I am sure that the schools doing this have already figured out all the angles, just throwing in my $0.02.

As for the Salarie issues, what if only assistants got their pay check from the NPO and the HC still got paid trough the School? Anything to get some of the limitations of of the program.

I hear you, the contract limits really hamper the athletic department's ability to recruit/retain coaches. But I also don't want the school (or NPO) to be forced to "buyout" a bunch of assistant coaches during a regime change, so the TABOR stuff still has some merit.

It would be better to be able to offer long term contracts, but have the guaranteed salaries lower and the performance incentives more lucrative for any coach. Also adding conditions that exempt the school from paying any guarantees to assistants if the head coach is fired or quits.

Creating a whole new entity, with additional administration costs, possible CEO salary, etc seems like an inefficient way to solve the problem with coaching salaries. It would be best to amend the state law to increase the contract limits from 6 personnel, to say 12 if there can be an endowment established that is assigned to pay for each of those additional annual contracts (I know that is highly unlikely).
 
Creating a whole new entity, with additional administration costs, possible CEO salary, etc seems like an inefficient way to solve the problem with coaching salaries. It would be best to amend the state law to increase the contract limits from 6 personnel, to say 12 if there can be an endowment established that is assigned to pay for each of those additional annual contracts (I know that is highly unlikely).

My Wife is staffing a state commision right now that is putting together suggestions for new legislation and from that heart ache they are going through it may be easier, quicker, more efficient and cheaper to start a new entity with a CEO IMHO.
 
I think what would make this better is you actually get voting privileges and a share of any profits that the AD would make. They can make it easy and say you must own a minimum of 1% of all outstanding shares to be invited to any shareholder meetings, otherwise you vote would be via proxy.
 
Technically, CU's AD is a separate entity as well, but it still has to answer to the school. All AD's have to answer to the school, regardless of whether they're independent entities or not. They represent the school, and as such, need to be held accountable to the school. Otherwise, it's a semi-pro franchise, not a college team.

When your boss is the President or the Chancellor or even the Board of Regents (if such a structure exists somewhere) your answering to someone that has the big picture for the University in mind.
 
I'll say this - if by purchasing a share in the department I get access to the financials of the department and have access to some kind of annual shareholders meeting where I could air my grievances directly to the people involved, I'd be willing to do that. That would be the benefit to owning some of this "stock". I hesitate to actually call it stock, as it's not any form of marketable security and doesn't represent any actual ownership in the entity.

Do you really need a meeting room to yell "Powder blue, Bohn!!!" ? :lol:
 
My Wife is staffing a state commision right now that is putting together suggestions for new legislation and from that heart ache they are going through it may be easier, quicker, more efficient and cheaper to start a new entity with a CEO IMHO.

Very true!

Sad.... but true.

I just don't understand how a possible endowment that is paid by private donations cannot be exempt from the TABOR provisions for contracted employees. The statute says that it limits the number of contracts for "government-supported officials or employees". If the position is not "government-supported", then how does it apply?

The boosters could raise the funds for each "endowed" coordinator position within the athletic department. It would cost approximately $8-10 million for a football coordinator, less for basketball assistants, football position coaches, and head coaches for non-revenue sports (such as skiing or volleyball). At an annual salary of approx. $400k (which is what a top-tier coordinator should be making) none of these funds would need to come from general or state funds and/or the athletic department budget.

That is alot of money, but once it is done, then we would not need to continue this problem of funding for coaches. And it would only really be needed (for football at least) on the three or four main assistants.
 
Last edited:
My Wife is staffing a state commision right now that is putting together suggestions for new legislation and from that heart ache they are going through it may be easier, quicker, more efficient and cheaper to start a new entity with a CEO IMHO.

ANYTHING is easier if you don't have to deal with the gov't. sticking their nose in and effing it up....
 
Back
Top