Bielema Buyout not Final?

[Melancholy_Pigg]

I think what Bielema is doing is very hurtful to those people who Love & Admire & Adore Bret the absolute most:   Arkansas fans.

We know what a terrifuc and wonderful moral compass of a man he is for us all.  A shining, guiding light!

Why is he coming back and asking for even more money?  What is he trying to hide in all this?

Oh my.  I hope our faith in Saint Bret can be enduring and not shaken.  Maybe thus is just a test - and Bret is just doing this to test our fortitude.  Or maybe it is divine judgment for those despicable people in our ranks who were critical of Bert.

I for one can't stand those types.  I still see them bring up The-Most-Evil-Man-in-the-World-Big-Cheater and the Sugar Bowl in slandering Saint Bert. Bret, I mean.

Can you imagine?  Oh my God.  I need another cup of Earl Grey and a good cry and a Lifetime movie.

[lechon]

Some people, like myself, doesn't want our donations made public.

I really do not care what you want.

[Melancholy_Pigg]

I don't believe that by coming clean about Bielema's contract the RF would suddenly be in a position where they would have to reveal everyone's donation information in the event Bielema foregoes the confidentiality to get more greenbacks.  At this point clearing the air on this with the fanbase is likely worth it.

[LZH]

Don't know a thing about BB's contract, but it does make me hope we don't up and find out any tomfoolery happening at the RF. The timing on Long's firing was a bit weird to me (ie NEZ project), and now there seems to be some resistance on spitting out the details of fat boy's buyout.

It's not like there hasn't been some funny stuff happen with RF money before.

[cram224]

Don't know a thing about BB's contract, but it does make me hope we don't up and find out any tomfoolery happening at the RF. The timing on Long's firing was a bit weird to me (ie NEZ project), and now there seems to be some resistance on spitting out the details of fat boy's buyout.

It's not like there hasn't been some funny stuff happen with RF money before.

I might be wrong but, the NEZ project belongs to the UofA Athletic Dept. I think the sells of the suites in NEZ has been handled by the UofA and not the RF. And no proceeds from those sells go to the RF.

[LZH]

I might be wrong but, the NEZ project belongs to the UofA Athletic Dept. I think the sells of the suites in NEZ has been handled by the UofA and not the RF. And no proceeds from those sells go to the RF.

You may very well be right, I have been out of the loop for quite a while and if I ever knew how stuff like that worked I have forgotten it. I just remember 12–15 years ago when there was quite the talk of big money boosters using RF money as their personal piggy banks. Our A.D. and head coach may or may not have benefited from some of that too - investments and the like.

[Martygit]

As noted before, given the relationship between the RF and the ticket buying public, it is the business of the taxpayer. 
Regardless of what happens now, this will be an interesting story to follow.

It is a stretch to try to connect the RF/ticket buying public to "taxpayers" - no one has to buy tickets, no one has to donate to the foundation - you try to equate them to justify your nosiness in wanting to look under the sheets at the foundation, mostly for your own gratification.  Making the foundation's records public will do a great disservice to the program.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Weird that we fired him for doing a great job.

Well it's clear what your interest is but he's gone.

Now carry on with your

[ricepig]

I might be wrong but, the NEZ project belongs to the UofA Athletic Dept. I think the sells of the suites in NEZ has been handled by the UofA and not the RF. And no proceeds from those sells go to the RF.

It's a blurred line between the RF and athletic department, and it have no problem with it since the athletic department takes no student fees and makes a profit. I've had RF people call me about loge box and club seats sales, and I've had athletic department/IMG people call. The donations for suites and such were made to the RF, so money has gone from one to the other.

[cram224]

The old suites you have to go through the RF. Just the new NEZ suites are sold through the UofA. That's what I was told, however I may have misunderstood.

[hogfanmd]

Any buyout paid after dec 31 also will cost the UA or the Razorback Foundation an extra 20% federal tax with the new tax law as do salaries over a mill going forward.  So tack
On an extra 20% surcharge FWIW. ☹️

[hogfanmd]

It's a blurred line between the RF and athletic department, and it have no problem with it since the athletic department takes no student fees and makes a profit. I've had RF people call me about loge box and club seats sales, and I've had athletic department/IMG people call. The donations for suites and such were made to the RF, so money has gone from one to the other.

I purchased a loge box for next season.  All was done through the foundation

[ricepig]

The old suites you have to go through the RF. Just the new NEZ suites are sold through the UofA. That's what I was told, however I may have misunderstood.

Well, I was actually referencing the Founder's Suites, but I could be wrong on where the donations for them went. And yes, the NEZ suites weren't based on any donation to the RF, priority points, or such, nor were the boxes or seats.

[hogfanmd]

Well, I was actually referencing the Founder's Suites, but I could be wrong on where the donations for them went. And yes, the NEZ suites weren't based on any donation to the RF, priority points, or such, nor were the boxes or seats.

I can't speak for the suites but the loge boxes were

[ricepig]

I can't speak for the suites but the loge boxes were

Umm, not when they were marketing them, because some were complaining about no donation required, but the actual price includes a defacto contribution to the RF, just as the $1300-1500 club seats have built in them. No priority points may set where the locations are.

[Porked Tongue]

How many Bielema's can fit in a Loge box?

[hogfanmd]

Umm, not when they were marketing them, because some were complaining about no donation required, but the actual price includes a defacto contribution to the RF, just as the $1300-1500 club seats have built in them. No priority points may set where the locations are.

I purchased a loge box
Unless I was lied to you had to list 10 boxes you were willing to take from
Your first to last choice
and they picked in order of your priority points. Also I had to maintain at least broyles Matthews silver in addition to the loge box or my parking would not be close to the stadium.  That was my experience.

[ricepig]

I purchased a loge box
Unless I was lied to you had to list 10 you were willing to take and they picked in order of your priority points. Also I had to maintain at least broyles Matthews silver in addition to the loge box or my parking would not be close to the stadium.  That was my experience.

I understand, as they were marketing them you did not have to be a current RF donor. Now those that were had to maintain their donation level, but someone who had never contributed could pay the $4000/seat for a box.

[hogfanmd]

I understand, as they were marketing them you did not have to be a current RF donor. Now those that were had to maintain their donation level, but someone who had never contributed could pay the $4000/seat for a box.

Well,
Either way they are going to be in a pickle next year, unless they drop the prices.  I was losing my east outdoor clubs and they talked
Me into trying it for a year.  One of the big selling points was tax deduction that is now erased after this dec 31.
Gonna take it back over to the bleacher seats for 2019 and
Pay off 2018 by dec 31

[ricepig]

Well,
Either way they are going to be in a pickle next year, unless they drop the prices.  I was losing my east outdoor clubs and they talked
Me into trying it for a year.  One of the big selling points was tax deduction that is now erased after this dec 31.
Gonna take it back over to the bleacher seats for 2019 and
Pay off 2018 by dec 31

Yep, it will be interesting to see what happens going forward. I'm the same level as you, but my 4 SOC seats don't require anywhere near that level.

[cram224]

The RF may have been the salesman, but the UofA got the money from NEZ. The RF's problem is they doubled the price of a seat with 1/2 of the price going as a donation. Club seat $225-$250 with, I think, around $100-$125 of that was considered a donation in which 80% of that was deductible. Now their asking the same price with no deductions, unless they make changes. My accountant sent me a letter that came from Sen. Grassley's office and he said that any prepays would not pass the "Smell Test".

[cram224]

College Football Teams Mount Blitz to Lock In Donors' Tax Breaks
2017-12-22 10:00:00.4 GMT


By Eben Novy-Williams and Janet Lorin
     (Bloomberg) -- Colleges are rushing to help wealthy donors
lock in a federal tax break, which subsidizes the sales of
college sports tickets and costs taxpayers $200 million a year.
     As part of the tax overhaul, lawmakers scrapped a provision
that enables alumni and other boosters to consider much of the
cost of buying season tickets -- and even $60,000-a-year luxury
boxes -- as tax-deductible charitable contributions. Some
members of Congress have long considered the 30-year-old
practice an abuse of the tax code.
     Now, universities are encouraging alumni to prepay their
tickets before the law changes Jan. 1 -- and not just for 2018.
Some, including the University of South Carolina and the
University of Oklahoma are accepting up-front seat payments for
three years; the University of Georgia would take five; Notre
Dame, ten -- at least, "in theory," according to spokesman Paul
Browne. Oklahoma State has set no limit.
     Notre Dame notified about 4,500 football season-ticket
holders about the potential advantage of prepayment and have
heard a "significant response," Browne said.

                        'Go Dawgs!'

     These titans -- and even smaller schools such as College of
William and Mary -- are revamping their websites to explain the
change in the tax code, as well as sending emails, letters and
making calls to donors. Under current rules, the donations for
seat rights are 80 percent deductible. Donors also have to pay
for the seats themselves, typically a much smaller expense,
which can't be written off.
     As the Georgia Bulldog Club gears up for the team's semi-
final showdown with Oklahoma on New Year's Day at the Rose Bowl,
athletics officials are reminding boosters that Jan. 1
represents another kind of deadline.
     In a year-end reminder, the club tells donors "it may be to
your advantage to make annual, ticket-related per-seat
contributions" by Dec. 31 for 2018 and future years. "Go Dawgs!"
it says.
     In small print, like other colleges, the school also says,
"This is not intended as legal or tax advice."

                        'Smell Test'

     Good thing, since the Republican lawmakers who championed
this bill, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, might not
end up blessing this approach, according to Dean Zerbe, former
senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee under Iowa
Senator Charles Grassley. Zerbe questioned whether colleges have
done enough due diligence before promoting it.
     Donor prepayment "doesn't pass the smell test," Zerbe said.
"There's a reason Congress repealed it. It never made sense as a
tax matter."
     Since the the late 1980s, colleges have used a provision of
the tax code to make gifts tied to season tickets tax
deductible. Modeled after seat licenses in professional sports,
the practice has helped turn some athletic departments into
$100-million-a-year operations.
     At Notre Dame, for example, fans must donate from $750 to
$2,500, depending on the location, to get access to season
tickets. But many pay far more. At Georgia, $60,000 a year gives
donors the rights to buy luxury box seats.

                       $5 Million Coaches

     Congressional critics have said donors typically don't get
to receive something valuable, such as elite seating at a
football game, and count it as a charitable gift. U.S.
Representative Tom Reed, a New York Republican who has attacked
various college tax exemptions, called the sport-ticket write-
off "an egregious benefit" and colleges' rush to secure
prepayments proof they "couldn't care less about the hard-
working taxpayers who subsidize it."
     Others within higher education have said the government
should be promoting life-saving research and financial aid,
rather than athletic departments and their coaches' salaries of
as much as $5 million. Colleges say the money supports student-
athlete scholarships.
     The ticket-related tax deduction "was coming at the
expense, I believe, of contributions people would have been
making otherwise to the educational purpose of the university,"
said James Duderstadt, the former president of the University of
Michigan.
     For now, though, financial advisers are suggesting that
donors take advantage of the final week of the tax break. They
compare it to the throngs of people in high-tax states prepaying
their property taxes because deductions will be limited in 2018
and beyond. (Congress did, however, block prepaying state income
taxes.)

                          50-Yard Line

     Georgia alumnus John Parker -- a "Silver Circle" Bulldog
Club donor, representing a minimum commitment of $1 million over
five years -- spoke with his financial advisers and took out his
checkbook. He pre-paid the next five years of donations for his
16 season tickets near the 50-yard line of Sanford Stadium in
Athens, Georgia. That package of seats typically costs about
$15,000 a year.
     Once the tax break disappears, Parker said it will hurt
college athletics. The University of Georgia collects $45
million in donations, of which $32 million are tax-deductible.
     "People won't stop giving, but it will hurt," said Parker,
a Georgia native and former general counsel of bottler Coca-Cola
Enterprises. "People may not give as much, or as often, and the
school is losing the tax-deduction sales pitch."

                         Donation Drop?

     Jon Bakija, a Williams College economist, has estimated
that donations will fall 20 to 30 percent, but others have said
the impact is unclear. After all, NFL fans routinely shell out
for tickets without government help.
     John Addison, Georgia class of 1979, said he didn't even
realize his ticket-related donations were tax deductible until
he heard that status was being revoked. After speaking with his
UBS tax adviser, he is cutting a $50,000 check for the next five
years worth of rights to eight season tickets.
     Addison, former co-chief executive officer of insurer
Primerica Inc., has attended every game this year and will be at
the Rose Bowl for the playoff against the University of Oklahoma
Sooners. He figures fans buy to watch champions, not because of
the tax code.
     "Money follows results," he said. "If you're doing what
Georgia did this year, money will be fine. If you're going 4-8
every season, money's not going to be fine. Whoever it is --
donors, fans, players -- people want to be associated with
success."

[Melancholy_Pigg]

It is a stretch to try to connect the RF/ticket buying public to "taxpayers" - no one has to buy tickets, no one has to donate to the foundation - you try to equate them to justify your nosiness in wanting to look under the sheets at the foundation, mostly for your own gratification.  Making the foundation's records public will do a great disservice to the program.

That argument will work for a private school.  It won't work for the flagship university of the citizens of Arkansas.

It is no stretch at all to equate Razorback ticket buyers with the people of Arkansas.  The primary land grant institution of the state funded by state taxes.  Not a stretch at all to assume they are the ticket buyers because the Razorback athletic team represents who - the University of Arkansas.

I am not even sure you meant to say that.

[Melancholy_Pigg]

God it just strikes me sometimes how much damage Bret Bielema did to this program.

I went to look at the odds of Tx vs MO and thpught HOW did Arkansas wind up getting bested by the Tigers in what was becoming an annual loss.

God he is a terrible coach - the fact that we are going to likely pay out even more money to him is just almost criminal.

It makes you wonder what shenanigans the foundation is trying to keep covered.  Whatever was going on was not heads-up football program administration.

No one in their right mind would give Bielema that much money.  Something is going on. 

[Lao Tsuie]

Haha, it's getting like big business and financial institutions where the CEO gets $millions while leaving a failing organization.

[ricepig]

The RF may have been the salesman, but the UofA got the money from NEZ. The RF's problem is they doubled the price of a seat with 1/2 of the price going as a donation. Club seat $225-$250 with, I think, around $100-$125 of that was considered a donation in which 80% of that was deductible. Now their asking the same price with no deductions, unless they make changes. My accountant sent me a letter that came from Sen. Grassley's office and he said that any prepays would not pass the "Smell Test".

The UofA gets all of the RF's money outside of their in-house salaries, is that even debatable? I mean, sure, there is a layer of legalese between them, but the idea of the RF was to raise money that is dedicated to Razorback athletics.

As to Sen. Grassley, he'll probably have as much look with this as he's had trying to limit farm subsidies. He had them do away with our "Mississippi Christmas trees", so our lawyers and CPA'a came up with other avenues. I fully expect all these fine colleges and universities will have some smart people come up with an avenue to rectify this.

[cram224]

The UofA gets all of the RF's money outside of their in-house salaries, is that even debatable? I mean, sure, there is a layer of legalese between them, but the idea of the RF was to raise money that is dedicated to Razorback athletics.

As to Sen. Grassley, he'll probably have as much look with this as he's had trying to limit farm subsidies. He had them do away with our "Mississippi Christmas trees", so our lawyers and CPA'a came up with other avenues. I fully expect all these fine colleges and universities will have some smart people come up with an avenue to rectify this.

Your right the RF money will filter it's way to the UofA.

[ricepig]

As a public university, the program is not above scrutiny from the taxpayers and when the actions and decisions of the RF continue to encumber the taxpayer for additional funds, the right to privacy is trumped by the public's right to know.

Where has the RF encumbered the taxpayers for additional funds?

[justmakeit2thebcs]

Firing Petrino
Hiring Smith
Hiring Bielema

Hope this helps.

Dumas

[LZH]

Dumas

Star City

[ricepig]

Star City

Gould

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Where has the RF encumbered the taxpayers for additional funds?

^^^this

[ricepig]

^^^this

It did seem to shut down that train of thought......

[Martygit]

It did seem to shut down that train of thought......

Oh, I doubt it - they'll be back spewing their same uneducated ignorant nonsense in an attempt to undermine the protected confidential nature of the foundation so that they can find out things they don't need to know but might give them something to bitch about.

[ricepig]

Actually, I'm still waiting for you to catch up.  The wait is long with you.....

I'm completely caught up, you still haven't said how the RF, with private funds, has encumbered the taxpayers of Arkansas?

[ricepig]

Uh-huh. 

Read the thread again.

Uh huh, you stated that the RF has encumbered the taxpayers, myself, and others, are awaiting your description of how they have. I'm sure you will deflect  some more, and never answer it. 

[Cinco de Hogo]

You're (almost) amusing. 
One day you might understand what it means to operate in the public interest - but I doubt this happens soon.

You personally operate in the public interest and pay taxes accordingly, I want the IRS to investigate you and publish all information according to my personal interest in your finances of which I'm sure you hiding something that could benefit me.

[oldhawg]

I see that neither of you can be bothered to read the thread.  I'm not going to do your work for you so when you can be bothered to make that minimal effort be sure to get back to me.

I have read the whole thread and still cannot find where you explained how the Razorback Foundation has encumbered the taxpayers for additional funds?  Not trying to be a smart ass, but just asking you to be a little more explicit.  I do not believe that it is other taxpayer's business how I spend my discretionary funds.

[huntindoc]

Working in public interest and encumbering the tax payer are two very different issues.  I think ricepig's question is reasonable.

[ricepig]

I have read the whole thread and still cannot find where you explained how the Razorback Foundation has encumbered the taxpayers for additional funds?  Not trying to be a smart ass, but just asking you to be a little more explicit.  I do not believe that it is other taxpayer's business how I spend my discretionary funds.

He's backed himself into a corner with his encumbered statement and won't ever admit it. You'll never get an answer because there's nothing he can say to justify it. How John Q Public is encumbered by a private foundation paying a salary is beyond me? Hell, the private foundation is even paying what the state line item allows for public employees, he should be thanking the foundation, lol.

[Melancholy_Pigg]

I wouldn't start gloating too much on supposedly no one having shown how the RF is a public institution.  Does the money collected by the RF free up other money somewhere in the budget?  Does the university make a profit off of the Razorback Foundation?  Eg - *by people donating to the Razorback Foundation (to get tickets issued by the state university, remember) is the foundation able to pay for better facilities and coaching that results in a profit being made and that supports anything else in the school budget?  Like women's bowling, for instance?

The foundation is sure as heck quasi-public.  Those of you on here trying to say that the Razorback Foundation is private like, for instance, a jelly-of-the-month-club that people pay money to know that is not correct.  The Razorback Foundation is tied to a public institution and that is the only reason people give money to it.  It is not like a jelly-of-the-month-club at all.

The money you give to the Razorback Foundation enables you to acquire better tickets - tickets issued by the public university - and it also enables the hiring of better coaches and the building of better facilities that likewise enhances the earning capacity of the public institution, and that money goes to pay for everything else with "athletic" in front of it (women's bowling would not exist without men's football, and neither would competitive basket-weaving or Razorback disc-golf...btw these are euphemisms).

It would also be interesting to see where all the foundation money went when it was not being used to pay Bret Bielma and Jeff Long (?  think there is a secret contract out there with Jeffy Long?  Ah - if one only knew) - you find $1.00 that went from the foundation directly to the university directly in a payment or benefit and we're off the races. 

I wouldn't want to bet everything on the private-entity argument in re to the foundation.  The foundation needs to get Bret to agree to waive confidentiality for more money (he'll do it - he knows he is not getting hired anywhere anytime soon and him and Hot Pants probably do not have a very responsible budget) and then the RF needs to disclose its super-secret double-secret probation contract (that is an Animal House reference, btw).

And then going forward everything needs to be out in the open and in the daylight.  We are, after all, an institution of great Integrity.


*I know that with Bielma's last season it is not like we're playing in the Sugar Bowl or any other bowl for that matter.  But the program still made money that supports other Razorback sports.

[Melancholy_Pigg]

Dilly Dilly, Sevenof400.  That is a great post!

[cram224]

All of this has been touched on previously in this thread but here is a handy review.

The failure to completely disclose the contract(s) surrounding the termination of CBB have once again focused attention on the relationship of the University of Arkansas (UofA) and the Razorback Foundation (RF).  CBB was an employee of the UofA and given the UofA is a public university, all of the contracts are part of the public record.  The RF would not have been paying CBB if he were not the HFC of the UofA so in this instance, the RF has been acting as a agent of the UofA and this contract should be publicly available as well.   

Furthermore, a question of this relationship between the UofA and the RF is one of influence; namely is the RF in a position to influence decisions made by the UofA.  The RF should be an extension of the UofA - helping to carry out the decisions made by the UofA, not the inverse.  While certainly not unprecedented (meaning such contracts are common at other universities), the existence of a second -and thus far secret- contract between CBB and the RF may have caused influence on any number decisions (not limited solely to CBB but also other coaches and perhaps issues like the expansion of DWRRS).  How is the public to know that CBB (or other coaches in the past or future) may have been fired or not fired based on the potential effects to the RF?  The fact remains the UofA is a public institution and at present, the public has no way to monitor the relationship of the RF on the UofA - despite the fact that decisions made from this relationship cause (obligate, encumber) the university to spend additional dollars toward causes that may not be in the public interest.  Another example of the potential nefarious nature in this relationship can be seen with the stadium expansion of DWRRS - the overwhelming majority of the changes are NOT in the best interest of the taxpayer (more luxury boxes, increased ticket prices, smaller seat space, etc) and yet the UofA has chosen to pursue this expansion.  How can the public have any confidence this decision is in the best interest of the taxpayers, the students of the UofA, and the general public unless they are privy to all details surrounding these decisions?

And to be thorough here, yes I would support the release of the donor list (donors to the RF) for precisely the reasons noted above so we can be sure the public interest is served by the state’s largest university system and not that of the RF when the two interests collide. 

Hater's going to Hate.

[ricepig]

All of this has been touched on previously in this thread but here is a handy review.

The failure to completely disclose the contract(s) surrounding the termination of CBB have once again focused attention on the relationship of the University of Arkansas (UofA) and the Razorback Foundation (RF).  CBB was an employee of the UofA and given the UofA is a public university, all of the contracts are part of the public record.  The RF would not have been paying CBB if he were not the HFC of the UofA so in this instance, the RF has been acting as a agent of the UofA and this contract should be publicly available as well.   

Furthermore, a question of this relationship between the UofA and the RF is one of influence; namely is the RF in a position to influence decisions made by the UofA.  The RF should be an extension of the UofA - helping to carry out the decisions made by the UofA, not the inverse.  While certainly not unprecedented (meaning such contracts are common at other universities), the existence of a second -and thus far secret- contract between CBB and the RF may have caused influence on any number decisions (not limited solely to CBB but also other coaches and perhaps issues like the expansion of DWRRS).  How is the public to know that CBB (or other coaches in the past or future) may have been fired or not fired based on the potential effects to the RF?  The fact remains the UofA is a public institution and at present, the public has no way to monitor the relationship of the RF on the UofA - despite the fact that decisions made from this relationship cause (obligate, encumber) the university to spend additional dollars toward causes that may not be in the public interest.  Another example of the potential nefarious nature in this relationship can be seen with the stadium expansion of DWRRS - the overwhelming majority of the changes are NOT in the best interest of the taxpayer (more luxury boxes, increased ticket prices, smaller seat space, etc) and yet the UofA has chosen to pursue this expansion.  How can the public have any confidence this decision is in the best interest of the taxpayers, the students of the UofA, and the general public unless they are privy to all details surrounding these decisions?

And to be thorough here, yes I would support the release of the donor list (donors to the RF) for precisely the reasons noted above so we can be sure the public interest is served by the state's largest university system and not that of the RF when the two interests collide. 

First, all the payments made to any employees over $100,000 is available on the RF, or any other charitable foundation, on their annual 990 tax return. It is public knowledge, so they hide nothing. The amount either Long or Bielema is paid will show up yearly on this form. It also lists the donations and expenses for every fiscal year, and where the money is going.

The taxpayers aren't paying for the expansion of DWRRS, the people buying tickets and making donations are, so there's nothing nefarious there, except some petty jealousy by some. Your questions here need to be addressed to the BOT, they approved the expansion, not the RF. The RF is just helping ensure that no public taxpayer or student fees are used to pay for this expansion, again helping out the taxpayers.

Should every church or non-profit post their list of every donation? You go first with the cancelled checks for yours.

[oldhawg]

All of this has been touched on previously in this thread but here is a handy review.

The failure to completely disclose the contract(s) surrounding the termination of CBB have once again focused attention on the relationship of the University of Arkansas (UofA) and the Razorback Foundation (RF).  CBB was an employee of the UofA and given the UofA is a public university, all of the contracts are part of the public record.  The RF would not have been paying CBB if he were not the HFC of the UofA so in this instance, the RF has been acting as a agent of the UofA and this contract should be publicly available as well.   

Furthermore, a question of this relationship between the UofA and the RF is one of influence; namely is the RF in a position to influence decisions made by the UofA.  The RF should be an extension of the UofA - helping to carry out the decisions made by the UofA, not the inverse.  While certainly not unprecedented (meaning such contracts are common at other universities), the existence of a second -and thus far secret- contract between CBB and the RF may have caused influence on any number decisions (not limited solely to CBB but also other coaches and perhaps issues like the expansion of DWRRS).  How is the public to know that CBB (or other coaches in the past or future) may have been fired or not fired based on the potential effects to the RF?  The fact remains the UofA is a public institution and at present, the public has no way to monitor the relationship of the RF on the UofA - despite the fact that decisions made from this relationship cause (obligate, encumber) the university to spend additional dollars toward causes that may not be in the public interest.  Another example of the potential nefarious nature in this relationship can be seen with the stadium expansion of DWRRS - the overwhelming majority of the changes are NOT in the best interest of the taxpayer (more luxury boxes, increased ticket prices, smaller seat space, etc) and yet the UofA has chosen to pursue this expansion.  How can the public have any confidence this decision is in the best interest of the taxpayers, the students of the UofA, and the general public unless they are privy to all details surrounding these decisions?

And to be thorough here, yes I would support the release of the donor list (donors to the RF) for precisely the reasons noted above so we can be sure the public interest is served by the state's largest university system and not that of the RF when the two interests collide. 

Thanks for your interpretations and opinions. 

The only part that I strongly object to is your last paragraph.  I think that total donations could be revealed without identifying specific donors and the amounts they give to the Foundation.  The public interest is not compromised just because names and corresponding amounts of donations are not revealed.  If revealed, some donors might find other ways, not so desirable or legal, to donate to athletic programs.  There is nothing wrong with a little anonymity.  The names of the major donors can be ferreted out pretty easily anyway.

[ricepig]

Thanks for your interpretations and opinions. 

The only part that I strongly object to is your last paragraph.  I think that total donations could be revealed without identifying specific donors and the amounts they give to the Foundation.  The public interest is not compromised just because names and corresponding amounts of donations are not revealed.  If revealed, some donors might find other ways, not so desirable or legal, to donate to athletic programs.  There is nothing wrong with a little anonymity.  The names of the major donors can be ferreted out pretty easily anyway.

I donate through an LLC, as do several.

[hawgon]

Of course, the Razorback Foundation is public in the sense that court after court in state after state has determined similar organizations to be with regard to the application of public record sunshine laws.  The issue has not been tried in Arkanasas, but if it ever is, the issue will almost certainly be decided in the same way.

[Melancholy_Pigg]

I can't figure Arkansas out. 

We get *moral outrage and fire a coach who got us to the Sugar Bowl for having an affair with a "young blonde half his age" when any other serious program in a similar situation would have kept him,

After a full-on self-inflicted flop for a year *(that we blame on the winning coach we just fired), we hire a guy with no SEC experience whatsoever who married a *"young blonde half his age" whom he met at a dice table in Vegas yet the moral outrage police (normally not big fans of dice tables, older men, las vegas, etc.) are just thrilled as can be,

We pay said Saint Bert over $30 million to win 11 SEC games in 5 years and (finally) fire him when we're left last in our division (whoopy!) and after serious rumors about his *drinking and carousing and *laziness,

And then upon hearing that the foundation to whom we give our money to had super-secret contracts giving the above dolt Saint Bert even more money, instead of going Holtz and just doing Do-Right, we start arguing for ways to *cover it up.



This selective moral outrage is becoming unbearable.  Integrity is a full-time job.  The above recitation of events, which inarguably is more or less what has happened since 2011,  shows a very perplexing moral conscience with no consistency. 

[rhog1]

I can't figure Arkansas out. 

We get *moral outrage and fire a coach who got us to the Sugar Bowl for having an affair with a "young blonde half his age" when any other serious program in a similar situation would have kept him,

After a full-on self-inflicted flop for a year *(that we blame on the winning coach we just fired), we hire a guy with no SEC experience whatsoever who married a *"young blonde half his age" whom he met at a dice table in Vegas yet the moral outrage police (normally not big fans of dice tables, older men, las vegas, etc.) are just thrilled as can be,

We pay said Saint Bert over $30 million to win 11 SEC games in 5 years and (finally) fire him when we're left last in our division (whoopy!) and after serious rumors about his *drinking and carousing and *laziness,

And then upon hearing that the foundation to whom we give our money to had super-secret contracts giving the above dolt Saint Bert even more money, instead of going Holtz and just doing Do-Right, we start arguing for ways to *cover it up.



This selective moral outrage is becoming unbearable.  Integrity is a full-time job.  The above recitation of events, which inarguably is more or less what has happened since 2011,  shows a very perplexing moral conscience with no consistency. 

One Bobby Petrino wasn't fired for having an affair with a woman half his age. Two who cares if Bret Bielema married a woman half his age he met in Vegas . They are both adults nothing wrong with it.  I have never seen anyone complain about that. 

[PonderinHog]

One Bobby Petrino wasn't fired for having an affair with a woman half his age. Two who cares if Bret Bielema married a woman half his age he met in Vegas . They are both adults nothing wrong with it.  I have never seen anyone complain about that.

Admittedly, I'm jealous...