goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: wes mantooth on September 14, 2010, 01:16:29 PM

Title: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: wes mantooth on September 14, 2010, 01:16:29 PM
Been staying out of this but I want to point a few things out ...

1. Why would Gary Patterson ever admit that he did not get a job he wanted? It does nothing to advance his career.

2. I will put my track record and honesty up against Bob Krause's any day. Even my haters, some of whom strangely pay me money to be on this site, would have trouble siding with Krause.

3. It is not a reporter's job not to report, particularly when NONE of the sources were under the understanding that the information could not get out until a certain time. FYI, we often don't report things under request of sources.

4. And finally, two weeks after the initial report (the Thursday leading up to the final game), I had gone from three sources to about a dozen who all said it was still going down. That doesn't add up to someone so mad that they will never talk to K-State again and lines up perfectly with Wefald intervening to hire Snyder.

Now, if you want a reason why Krause was not long after run out, it wasn't about contracts, etc. That damage came out afterward. When you look big donors in the eye and tell them you need money because you've hired Gary Patterson and then later say you never planned on hiring the man, the money will run you out of the department.

If there's one thing I am pleased that came out of this, everyone got to see what a clown show Bob Krause was as AD (and had been on the academic side for years) and sadly how Dr. Wefald had lost a grip on what his job should be. Any more time in office from Krause in particular could have damaged the department so badly it may not have recovered for a very long time.

And, take solace in this. No matter what the damage was Krause did to K-State athletics, it will pale in comparison to what Perkins has done to KU. No one can get a firm number, but reporters are telling me that the LOW number for KU's debt is $45 million. It may exceed $80 million. It sure is fun being the guy who spends the money, but not being the one who has to pay it off.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: wes mantooth on September 14, 2010, 01:17:23 PM
Also, earlier in this thread someone mentioned that if Snyder leaves in 2 years, they'd be more than happy with Dimel as our coach.   :facepalm:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: WillieWatanabe on September 14, 2010, 01:20:02 PM
:users:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: steve dave on September 14, 2010, 01:22:58 PM
Fitz is trying to throw Krause under the bus for Patterson just like Wefald threw Krause under the bus for Prince  :surprised:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: 06wildcat on September 14, 2010, 01:24:35 PM

3. It is not a reporter's job not to report, particularly when NONE of the sources were under the understanding that the information could not get out until a certain time. FYI, we often don't report things under request of sources.

 :facepalm:

It's not a rough ridin' source if you're not reporting the information Fitz. Yeah, you keep sitting on all that prime information your "sources" are giving you. It's gotten you such great access to the program that you were able to break the story about ... well hell you haven't really broken a story since "It's Patterson".

On second thought, I know why you don't release any information until it becomes public knowledge. Your sources suck.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Trim on September 14, 2010, 01:27:30 PM
It's Patterson
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on September 14, 2010, 01:29:59 PM
Fitz is trying to throw Krause under the bus for Patterson just like Wefald threw Krause under the bus for Prince  :surprised:

yeah. wefald set the precedent. surprised it took two tons that long to jump on the bus and throw krause under it.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: hillwalking03 on September 14, 2010, 01:38:18 PM
Not defending Perkins here, I just don't get Fitz's logic.  We have $50 million in debt, but we also have a new basketball practice facility, new football facilities, new Olympic Sports facility, up grades to the baseball "stadium", softball field, and improvements in the athlete living facilities. 

I guess his reasoning is not having facilities and not having debt>> having facilities, having debt?
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: CNS on September 14, 2010, 01:40:40 PM
Been staying out of this but I want to point a few things out ...

1. Why would Gary Patterson ever admit that he did not get a job he wanted? It does nothing to advance his career.

2. I will put my track record and honesty up against Bob Krause's any day. Even my haters, some of whom strangely pay me money to be on this site, would have trouble siding with Krause.

3. It is not a reporter's job not to report, particularly when NONE of the sources were under the understanding that the information could not get out until a certain time. FYI, we often don't report things under request of sources.

4. And finally, two weeks after the initial report (the Thursday leading up to the final game), I had gone from three sources to about a dozen who all said it was still going down. That doesn't add up to someone so mad that they will never talk to K-State again and lines up perfectly with Wefald intervening to hire Snyder.

Now, if you want a reason why Krause was not long after run out, it wasn't about contracts, etc. That damage came out afterward. When you look big donors in the eye and tell them you need money because you've hired Gary Patterson and then later say you never planned on hiring the man, the money will run you out of the department.

If there's one thing I am pleased that came out of this, everyone got to see what a clown show Bob Krause was as AD (and had been on the academic side for years) and sadly how Dr. Wefald had lost a grip on what his job should be. Any more time in office from Krause in particular could have damaged the department so badly it may not have recovered for a very long time.

And, take solace in this. No matter what the damage was Krause did to K-State athletics, it will pale in comparison to what Perkins has done to KU. No one can get a firm number, but reporters are telling me that the LOW number for KU's debt is $45 million. It may exceed $80 million. It sure is fun being the guy who spends the money, but not being the one who has to pay it off.

Dax boner in 3, 2, 1...
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: pissclams on September 14, 2010, 01:44:12 PM
Not defending Perkins here, I just don't get Fitz's logic.  We have $50 million in debt, but we also have a new basketball practice facility, new football facilities, new Olympic Sports facility, up grades to the baseball "stadium", softball field, and improvements in the athlete living facilities. 

I guess his reasoning is not having facilities and not having debt>> having facilities, having debt?

I wouldn't spend too much time trying to decode Fitz's logic.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: deputy dawg on September 14, 2010, 01:46:38 PM
Not defending Perkins here, I just don't get Fitz's logic.  We have $50 million in debt, but we also have a new basketball practice facility, new football facilities, new Olympic Sports facility, up grades to the baseball "stadium", softball field, and improvements in the athlete living facilities. 

I guess his reasoning is not having facilities and not having debt>> having facilities, having debt?
It means that Sweet Lew is not the hero Lawrence rubes make him out to be.  K-State could have spent that much money as easily as ku did, but the trick is how to pay it off and meet ongoing obligations.  I looked at the most recently available kansas athletic corporation financials online (year ending 6-08), and annual operating expenses were $60 million.  If you have a 10 year debt service obligation (principal + interest) on that amount, you're looking at a minimum of an additional $5 million annual operating expenses.  ku has some big donors, but it wouldn't take many of those to drop off before ku got into REAL financial trouble.  BTW, aren't a lot of ku's donors real estate developers, and the like?  You know, the sector of the economy crashing faster than cinder blocks thrown out of a moving truck?
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: steve dave on September 14, 2010, 01:48:25 PM
Not defending Perkins here, I just don't get Fitz's logic.  We have $50 million in debt, but we also have a new basketball practice facility, new football facilities, new Olympic Sports facility, up grades to the baseball "stadium", softball field, and improvements in the athlete living facilities. 

I guess his reasoning is not having facilities and not having debt>> having facilities, having debt?
It means that Sweet Lew is not the hero Lawrence rubes make him out to be.  K-State could have spent that much money as easily as ku did, but the trick is how to pay it off and meet ongoing obligations.  I looked at the most recently available kansas athletic corporation financials online (year ending 6-08), and annual operating expenses were $60 million.  If you have a 10 year debt service obligation (principal + interest) on that amount, you're looking at a minimum of an additional $5 million annual operating expenses.  ku has some big donors, but it wouldn't take many of those to drop off before ku got into REAL financial trouble.  BTW, aren't a lot of ku's donors real estate developers, and the like?  You know, the sector of the economy crashing faster than cinder blocks thrown out of a moving truck?

Hey DD, you happen to check the amount of bonds we're getting ready to float for our stadium improvements?
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: ArchE_Cat on September 14, 2010, 01:48:41 PM
Not defending Perkins here, I just don't get Fitz's logic.  We have $50 million in debt, but we also have a new basketball practice facility, new football facilities, new Olympic Sports facility, up grades to the baseball "stadium", softball field, and improvements in the athlete living facilities. 

I guess his reasoning is not having facilities and not having debt>> having facilities, having debt?

The point is Perkins didn't have a plan in place to payoff the debt. It's one thing to have debt when you can project revenue and budget accordingly to pay the debt off. The thing with Perkins is that the debt to projected revenue ratio he was selling turned out to be completely bogus.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: deputy dawg on September 14, 2010, 01:51:46 PM
K-State is applying to obtain $50 million of bonded indebtedness.  How much of that they will actually incur is an open question.  Surely the basketball practice facility and the long-planned BSFS improvements, but weren't those just over $20 million?
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: steve dave on September 14, 2010, 01:52:29 PM
K-State is applying to obtain $50 million of bonded indebtedness.  How much of that they will actually incur is an open question.  Surely the basketball practice facility and the long-planned BSFS improvements, but weren't those just over $20 million?

no
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 14, 2010, 01:53:27 PM
Not defending Perkins here, I just don't get Fitz's logic.  We have $50 million in debt, but we also have a new basketball practice facility, new football facilities, new Olympic Sports facility, up grades to the baseball "stadium", softball field, and improvements in the athlete living facilities. 

I guess his reasoning is not having facilities and not having debt>> having facilities, having debt?
It means that Sweet Lew is not the hero Lawrence rubes make him out to be.  K-State could have spent that much money as easily as ku did, but the trick is how to pay it off and meet ongoing obligations.  I looked at the most recently available kansas athletic corporation financials online (year ending 6-08), and annual operating expenses were $60 million.  If you have a 10 year debt service obligation (principal + interest) on that amount, you're looking at a minimum of an additional $5 million annual operating expenses.  ku has some big donors, but it wouldn't take many of those to drop off before ku got into REAL financial trouble.  BTW, aren't a lot of ku's donors real estate developers, and the like?  You know, the sector of the economy crashing faster than cinder blocks thrown out of a moving truck?

Hey DD, you happen to check the amount of bonds we're getting ready to float for our stadium improvements?

Great point. KU is not in trouble and K-State won't be either. The additional money from our upcoming tv contract should more than make up for the bond payment, especially with interest rates as low as they are.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: OK_Cat on September 14, 2010, 01:55:28 PM
I confirmed Patterson to KSU on ksufans several days before Fitz screwed it up.  Just wanted to remind people that, was one of my finest hours.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: my troll name ... Koppe22 on September 14, 2010, 02:11:11 PM
You Mawtards just cant help yourselves, its a real sickness.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 14, 2010, 02:13:48 PM
There's nothing wrong with debt.     The difference between ku and K-State is that at K-State the vast majority of the debt will be directly tied to facilities that generate revenue i.e. suites, stadium clubs, concessions.   Significant portions of the debt at ku is tied to facilities that don't directly generate revenue i.e. offices, practice gyms etc. etc..  The BTF (Basketball Training Facility) at K-State will be entirely or almost entirely paid for with private donations.  

But all in all it may not mean anything, or it may mean a lot.   We'll know a lot more about what's going on at ku when the FBI/IRS/DOJ report comes out, and as I said in another thread, we're very near financial reporting season for FY 2010, the EADA reports to the DOE are due here in a few weeks . . . if things held to form from Perkins comments earlier in the year to USA Today, ku athletics could finish FY 2010 in the red.

My feeling is that Perkins being shoved out ahead of time had nothing to do with losing to NDSU . . . and everything to do with what the auditors are finding.    That way when the $hit hits the fan Bernie can go to the Regents and tell them that she's already sent the head rat packing.




Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: fatty fat fat on September 14, 2010, 02:19:48 PM
autoimmune disorder.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: hillwalking03 on September 14, 2010, 02:20:45 PM

My feeling is that Perkins being shoved out ahead of time had nothing to do with losing to NDSU . . . and everything to do with what the auditors are finding.    That way when the $hit hits the fan Bernie can go to the Regents and tell them that she's already sent the head rat packing.


Agreed
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Trim on September 14, 2010, 02:24:48 PM
autoimmune disorder.

 :zzz: <-- Fitz (when there isn't important tweeting/perving/destroying KSU football to be done)
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: EllToPay on September 14, 2010, 02:30:58 PM
Would love to see Fitz weigh in.

:users:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Benja on September 14, 2010, 02:58:47 PM
There's nothing wrong with debt.     The difference between ku and K-State is that at K-State the vast majority of the debt will be directly tied to facilities that generate revenue i.e. suites, stadium clubs, concessions.   Significant portions of the debt at ku is tied to facilities that don't directly generate revenue i.e. offices, practice gyms etc. etc..  The BTF (Basketball Training Facility) at K-State will be entirely or almost entirely paid for with private donations. 

But all in all it may not mean anything, or it may mean a lot.   


Yeah, this is really what it comes down to. Perkins has put ku in a position that any good AD, at least one that plans on sticking around for a while, will try hard to avoid. Not having a clear picture of how debt will get paid off is not an ideal situation. Might end up coming back to bite ku in the ass, or it might not.

What made the Perkins situation so bad is not only the debt he incurred, but how the whole time he was running his mouth about how great everything was going, how many things were gonna get built, how much revenue was coming in... and the whole while the only one coming out on top was him. The only reason ku put up with Perkin's sleezyness and insane ugliness was because he was gonna make them money. Once it became clear he was only worried about making money for himself it was time for him to jump the sinking ship. ku got doped. Sorry suckers. It happens.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: coach bake on September 14, 2010, 03:07:45 PM
Worked with Patterson's brother in law the last few years and he said he was coming but the "It's Patterson"thing pissed him off.  But I did get some sweet Fiesta Bowl gear from last years game.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Benja on September 14, 2010, 03:14:57 PM
Worked with Patterson's brother in law the last few years and he said he was coming but the "It's Patterson"thing pissed him off.  But I did get some sweet Fiesta Bowl gear from last years game.

 :surprised:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Trim on September 14, 2010, 03:16:10 PM
Worked with Patterson's brother in law the last few years and he said he was coming but the "It's Patterson"thing pissed him off.  But I did get some sweet Fiesta Bowl gear from last years game.

As in bro of Patterson's wife who was house-hunting in MHK?
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: michigancat on September 14, 2010, 03:22:53 PM
Quote
Fitz weighs in

Heh
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: WillieWatanabe on September 14, 2010, 03:27:14 PM
You Mawtards just cant help yourselves, its a real sickness.

This was a major turning point in KSU athletics. Quit being an attention whore.  :angry:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Benja on September 14, 2010, 03:27:57 PM
Quote
Fitz weighs in

Heh

Yep.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 14, 2010, 03:28:30 PM
Didn't I already start saying goemawtards awhile back . . . this is confusing.   :dunno:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: EllToPay on September 14, 2010, 03:35:47 PM
Quote
Fitz weighs in

Heh

Would love to see Fitz weigh in.

:users:

:cheers:

Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: michigancat on September 14, 2010, 03:36:50 PM
Quote
Fitz weighs in

Heh

Would love to see Fitz weigh in.

:users:

:cheers:



 
:cheers:

It's funnier to me when I do an obvious joke w/o reading the thread.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: deputy dawg on September 14, 2010, 03:39:23 PM
Help me out here--have we committed to spend the $50 million to be raised in the bond issue?
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: D-FRED-BROWN on September 14, 2010, 03:42:23 PM
Quote
And, take solace in this. No matter what the damage was Krause did to K-State athletics, it will pale in comparison to what Perkins has done to KU.

 :flush:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: EllToPay on September 14, 2010, 03:46:01 PM
So, do all the GPC minions take him for his word on this crap? :confused:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: my troll name ... Koppe22 on September 14, 2010, 03:47:14 PM
You Mawtards just cant help yourselves, its a real sickness.

This was a major turning point in KSU athletics. Quit being an attention whore.  :angry:

You mawtards give Fitz entirely too much credit, but it serves its purpose so I understand.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 14, 2010, 03:47:43 PM
Did Fitz's garbage softball team get destroyed like I predicted?
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: chum1 on September 14, 2010, 03:55:22 PM
I will put my track record and honesty up against Bob Krause's any day.

I know he has a rationalization for each and every one of these, but:

Stealing subscription list thing
False report about Bill Walker thumb injury
Bill Walker mystery transfer nonsense
False report of some sort about Tim Floyd
Claimed first to report Prince hiring
Claimed first to report Snyder retirement
False report about Eric Martin/Demarcus Cousins relationship

So, that's like the tip of the iceberg.  I wish I had a complete list of Fitz bullshit.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 14, 2010, 04:12:22 PM
Fitz seems like he is really lazy.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Saulbadguy on September 14, 2010, 04:23:34 PM
I will put my track record and honesty up against Bob Krause's any day.

I know he has a rationalization for each and every one of these, but:

Stealing subscription list thing
False report about Bill Walker thumb injury
Bill Walker mystery transfer nonsense
False report of some sort about Tim Floyd
Claimed first to report Prince hiring
Claimed first to report Snyder retirement
False report about Eric Martin/Demarcus Cousins relationship

So, that's like the tip of the iceberg.  I wish I had a complete list of Fitz bullshit.

Racist remarks from KU bench
Mangino "eff you" to Fitz after a game
KU recruiting Tyree Evans
KU recruiting OJ Mayo
KU recruiting Dominique Sutton
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Kat Kid on September 14, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
Fitz seems like he is really lazy.

If Jmart still posted here, he would through a jab about deadlines.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: BMWWcat on September 14, 2010, 09:49:36 PM
You have to look at the debt itself:
Was the money (debt) spent on something that generates income?  Such as more suites, seats, ect.
Or was the money (debt) spent on something that looks nice and shiny? (not a problem if you are oregon, osu, texas) like a practice facility.
Can that debt eventually help pay itself off?  Practice facilities=no, More seats or suites=yes.
Even though interest rates are low, 1% on $50,000,000 is still A LOT of money, and I doubt all of that debt is financed that low.  It takes A LOT of donations each year just to cover the interest on that amount.  Not to mention our economy sucks.
Currie is correct when he says non revenue items will be paid for with private donations (minimal debt) because all they do is get more expensive each year that they are not paid off.
So if you want us to look elite...pony up some cash!
 :ksu:
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Havs on September 14, 2010, 10:35:04 PM
Can you guy's just be thankful you got Snyder back??? In 2007 the headlines in Iowa wrote "It's Kelly." fml... 12-0 would have been nice...
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: Cire on September 15, 2010, 06:46:07 AM
Can you guy's just be thankful you got Snyder back??? In 2007 the headlines in Iowa wrote "It's Kelly." fml... 12-0 would have been nice...

nope
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: chum1 on September 15, 2010, 07:26:14 AM
Can you guy's just be thankful you got Snyder back??? In 2007 the headlines in Iowa wrote "It's Kelly." fml... 12-0 would have been nice...

it goes way beyond that. people would be piling on fitz if it's patterson never happened.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: WavetheWheat on September 15, 2010, 08:38:03 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi261.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii61%2Fwavinwheat%2Ffitz.jpg&hash=876bcf83963ace7f0d4993826cfac67953e145a2)
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: EMAWzified on September 15, 2010, 01:18:57 PM
I don't care if Jesus told him it was Patterson. No where does Fitz explain why he failed journalism 101 and didn't call the man himself before posting and blabbing all over the radio.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: "storm"nut on September 15, 2010, 01:21:07 PM
I don't care if Jesus told him it was Patterson. No where does Fitz explain why he failed journalism 101 and didn't call the man himself before posting and blabbing all over the radio.

Because even Fitz knows that Patterson would have said no contact. Don't wast the big guys time. Besides who is to say he did not ? Your making me defend him on this board, dick.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: WillieWatanabe on September 24, 2010, 09:40:55 AM
Quote
Chip Brown of OrangeBloods.com Tweeted the following this afternoon:

"Texas A&M fans would rather have Mike Sherman or Gary Patterson? You could have had Patterson. That's a fact."

I asked Patterson about this "fact" and his response was, "That's a lie. Nobody at Texas A&M ever contacted me. ... He's a liar. It's just like the Kansas State job."

http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/09/tcu-coach-reporter-lied-texas-am-never-c.html
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: MadCat on September 24, 2010, 09:46:07 AM
Quote
Chip Brown of OrangeBloods.com Tweeted the following this afternoon:

"Texas A&M fans would rather have Mike Sherman or Gary Patterson? You could have had Patterson. That's a fact."

I asked Patterson about this "fact" and his response was, "That's a lie. Nobody at Texas A&M ever contacted me. ... He's a liar. It's just like the Kansas State job."

http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/09/tcu-coach-reporter-lied-texas-am-never-c.html

By the Power of Grayskull, Fitz is a liar too.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: hardcorekickball on September 24, 2010, 03:57:24 PM
gpc just plain sucks now.  It's great to go over there and flame though.  Not like fitz cares, he's too drunk at tubbys to do anything.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: broXcore on September 24, 2010, 05:13:05 PM
gpc just plain sucks now.  It's great to go over there and flame though.  Not like fitz cares, he's too drunk at tubbys to do anything.
Get the eff out of here
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: kitten_mittons on September 24, 2010, 05:24:42 PM
gpc just plain sucks now.  It's great to go over there and flame though.  Not like fitz cares, he's too drunk at tubbys to do anything.
Get the eff out of here

That PI seemed to work well.
Title: Re: Fitz weighs in on "It's Patterson"
Post by: yoga-like_abana on September 24, 2010, 05:27:54 PM
You have to look at the debt itself:
Was the money (debt) spent on something that generates income?  Such as more suites, seats, ect.
Or was the money (debt) spent on something that looks nice and shiny? (not a problem if you are oregon, osu, texas) like a practice facility.
Can that debt eventually help pay itself off?  Practice facilities=no, More seats or suites=yes.
Even though interest rates are low, 1% on $50,000,000 is still A LOT of money, and I doubt all of that debt is financed that low.  It takes A LOT of donations each year just to cover the interest on that amount.  Not to mention our economy sucks.
Currie is correct when he says non revenue items will be paid for with private donations (minimal debt) because all they do is get more expensive each year that they are not paid off.
So if you want us to look elite...pony up some cash!
 :ksu:
:Martavious did not read emoticon: