http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...e-of-Boise?urn=ncaaf,201913#remaining-content
Now thats an interesting idea.
Now thats an interesting idea.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...e-of-Boise?urn=ncaaf,201913#remaining-content
Now thats an interesting idea.
I just like the idea cause it could possibly (with some good lawyering) get the AD out from under TABOR and such...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...
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.
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 $!
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).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.
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.
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.”
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'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'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.
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 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.
Who's bringing the aluminum pole?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not in favor of the idea.