Here's the stats provided by Sasappis from the Federal lawsuit thread on the premium board, which I believe he pulled from the TMF response to the TRO filling. The bolding is mine in reference to the discussions here.

When the process began in July 13 there were 494 endowed accounts tied to 1,760.
44 of those endowed elected to have the TMF buy back their endowments.
Currently there are 453 Endowed donors tied to 1,556 seats.
99% of the endowed donors selected the $2,000 per year seat credit.
Less than 20 endoweds provided any written reservation of rights when submitting their packets.
334 endowed donors elected seats in sections requiring donations above and beyond the $2,000 credit.
8 endowed donors selected suites.
There are 243 endowed donors in the top 1,000 donors.

So, apparently a lot of endowed donors have a lot of money. Who'da thunk it?

Mr. York's lawsuit in federal court basically says, "my seats were in 208 and that corresponds with the 'Prime Legacy Club' so that is where I want my new seats."

quote:

---

44 of those endowed elected to have the TMF buy back their endowments.

---

I didn't know this was an option. To me, that gives the lawsuits even less merit.

No, you can't please everybody. But I'm confident there were a bunch of dissatisfied Aggies who chose NOT to sue. The TMF could've done better.

quote:

---

So, apparently a lot of endowed donors have a lot of money. Who'da thunk it?

---

also, apparently, a lot of the ED's didn't give much (if any) money after giving their endowment...my gut says those guys (the one time givers then small annual donations) are the "entitled few" who have elected to sue

quote:

---

99% of the endowed donors selected the $2,000 per year seat credit.

---

The 1% are the new 2%ers?!

I would expect Mr. York is, since he didn't fulfill his original endowment, the TMF worked with him to modlfy it and now he wants what is his.

quote:

---

also, apparently, a lot of the ED's didn't give much (if any) money after giving their endowment...my gut says those guys (the one time givers then small annual donations) are the "entitled few" who have elected to sue

---

Or maybe those $30K donations in the 80's represented sacrificial giving and they (silly them) believed The Aggie Club's promises?

quote:

---

Glad the new stadium got built.. a few eggs had to get broken to make the omelet. Big deal..

---

Say that when you're one of the broken eggs and I'll believe that you actually believe it.

12th Man is a POS. Will never get another dime from me. Lying cheating *******s.

Yes, it's ok when it not happening to you ! But just as it has happened to the EDs , it will happen to everybody else in the name of improvements or when ever money is required to be raised by the 12th man trustees . ( it is their job )

The TMF is not perfect, far from it. I have been one of their most vocal critics at times on this website. But, at the end of the day, I think most donors felt they handled this project in a reasonable manner. Many of us have ended up worse off post-renovation - ez bench seats were the only thing personally available to me. My parking is now a distance from Kyle Field that I rarely walked when I was in school as a student.

For those with long-term agreements, the foundation has offered what appears to be more than reasonable alternatives. Few, VERY FEW of those people, felt the need to officially express their displeasure to the TMF, yet I should believe that those who ultimately chose litigation against a charitable organization that they allegedly support are the ones acting within reason? At this point, I almost wish the Foundation would calculate out what those who sued "donated" and pay them back in full with interest. That way they can live bitterly with the feeling they got screwed over for going to games for free for 30 years.

It's frustrating to see this crap in the papers, and it's even more frustrating as a donor to watch other donors sue the organization that we all supposedly support.

The problem is that the very past head of 12th Man made lifetime promises that he was not capable of keeping------that's why every single seat right now has a term------we learned from the stupidity of that promise. The12th Man did an adequate job of attempting to recognize those gifts, but some of the ED's are being unreasonable. Bottom line, if all ED's woudl have kept their seats in the current location for free, it woudl have reduced the revenue by $100M......99% of them realize that and realize they were given a lot of recognition. Hopefully we dodn't make further idiotic promises that make people feel entitled.

Bottom line, it's sad that we have so many suing a charitable donation-----why hasn't the 12th Man set up a free shuttle from lots for ED's------or done something to appease this situation since it seems to be about parking, too. Sad that it came to this.

not sure what the term is for, they can raise prices on them seats anytime they want. Seems to me if can reseat everyone if they want. After all its for the good of the program and anyone would be a bad Ag if they protested, right.

Rich folks don't do shuttles...free or not.

quote:

---

Rich folks don't do shuttles...free or not.

---

Rich Folk Shuttle

fine, send a limo-----that woudl probably be cheaper than all this BS litigation.

quote:

---

The TMF is not perfect, far from it. I have been one of their most vocal critics at times on this website. But, at the end of the day, I think most donors felt they handled this project in a reasonable manner. Many of us have ended up worse off post-renovation - ez bench seats were the only thing personally available to me. My parking is now a distance from Kyle Field that I rarely walked when I was in school as a student.

For those with long-term agreements, the foundation has offered what appears to be more than reasonable alternatives. Few, VERY FEW of those people, felt the need to officially express their displeasure to the TMF, yet I should believe that those who ultimately chose litigation against a charitable organization that they allegedly support are the ones acting within reason? At this point, I almost wish the Foundation would calculate out what those who sued "donated" and pay them back in full with interest. That way they can live bitterly with the feeling they got screwed over for going to games for free for 30 years.

It's frustrating to see this crap in the papers, and it's even more frustrating as a donor to watch other donors sue the organization that we all supposedly support.

---

yup, I've given a lot more money than some of these guys and getting a far worse deal without the recourse these guys are getting

I can only speak for one of the EDs and I'll just say I was dissatisfied with the 12MF " solution ". My problem with all of this is while you may think it's an adequate solution I don't think its a fair one and I'm the affected party not you. There was no negotiation process nor even an overture to ask our opinion.
I will not sue my alma mater over something like this but don't lump that into thinking I am happy about the outcome . Just remember as others have said the 12MF has a history of breaking promises and agreements. Your current seating arrangements aren't worth the paper they are printed on. To believe otherwise shows your naivete

Right with you Charlie !

quote:

---

I can only speak for one of the EDs and I'll just say I was dissatisfied with the 12MF " solution ". My problem with all of this is while you may think it's an adequate solution I don't think its a fair one and I'm the affected party not you. There was no negotiation process nor even an overture to ask our opinion.
I will not sue my alma mater over something like this but don't lump that into thinking I am happy about the outcome . Just remember as others have said the 12MF has a history of breaking promises and agreements. Your current seating arrangements aren't worth the paper they are printed on. To believe otherwise shows your naivete

---

fair enough Charlie....and do you understand LOTS of TMF members and donors who have given more money than some of the ED's also are not happy but did not get the deal the EDs were given?

we can say we're not happy but sometimes you just shut-up and take it

From the thread on premium, the litigants have asked for a change of venue to somewhere out of state. I guess they didn't like being turned down on the TRO.

quote:

---

donors who have given more money than some of the ED's also are not happy but did not get the deal the EDs were given?

---

They didn't have the promises made to them that the EDs did.

Ummm every donor with a priority season ticket has been told every year that we'd always have first shot at our same seats every year if we paid again.

That sounds pretty similar to the supposed verbal promises that th EDs would always have the best seats or whatever.

quote:

---

Rich folks don't do shuttles...free or not.

---

Shuttles have been used in the past and worked fine, but something tells me these plaintiffs would never accept that as a permanent accommodation.

What they really ought to do is just rename the lots. Alphabetical order is too easy for status ranking. Instead, let them argue about the superiority of "Old Army" lot versuses "Reveille" lot.

Why do so many have such a tough time realizing that we have completely transformed the stadium and keeping the same seat doesn't make any sense. There was plenty of recognition for past giving, but there still has to be recognition of new giving. End of the day someone that's given $10 k over 15 yrs still got more credit than someone that's given $10k this yr.....but should the guy that's given $100k this yr pick after that guy that gave $10k over 15 yrs? There is a level where every fundraising arm has to continue raising money and some on here don't get that and want to think past giving is all that should matter. I understand the EDs were given a promise that frankly the head of the 12th Man 30 yrs ago could never keep. They were given consideration for that, but some just refuse to recognize the stadium is completely changing. Oh well....shame in both sides for thinking things would stay static for 40+ years. They do realize that 2nd deck between the 30's was bench seats and now it's a club....if the 1,800 ED seats were just given to EDs we would have lost out on $100M....so this stadium wouldn't be getting redone. I just won't get why the stubbornness of the exact same seat. Oh well

How do 1.8% of the seats equate to 25% of the funding?

12th man should have just made a ED section like it did for staff and lettermen so that the ED would get "seats in the Endowed Section" like the contract says.

It is hard to believe that the ED that were on second deck 50 yard line now think they are entitled to the same seats as well as access to the Private Legacy Club.

Interesting thread.

Interesting comment.

"The problem is that the very past head of 12th Man made lifetime promises that he was not capable of keeping"

You acknowledge that promises were made.

How was he ''not capable' of keeping the promises?

You either keep a promise, or you don't.

You don't renege on a promise because you don't like the ongoing financial consequences.

Can we just play ball???

quote:

---

"The problem is that the very past head of 12th Man made lifetime promises that he was not capable of keeping"

You acknowledge that promises were made.

How was he ''not capable' of keeping the promises?

You either keep a promise, or you don't.

You don't renege on a promise because you don't like the ongoing financial consequences.

---

This. If you've "made a promise you can't keep" what do you do? Well, the FIRST thing you do is talk to the folks you made the promises to. Before plans or anything else. You sit down with each and every one of them, discuss the situation, pick their brains, and THEN begin planning. I think it's evident that the ED agreement had become something that, quite frankly, pissed off higher ups in the admin of the TMF. They (the EDs) should have been brought close into the planning from the very beginning. A "promise that can't be kept" is 100% the responsibility of the promiser, not the promised. It seems that the EDs were treated like (at best) petulant children or (at worst) adversaries. They should have been treated like valued partners who had played a significant role in the history of the program. I suspect that had they been included in the process from the very beginning, and treated like valued partners, the whole thing would have gone a different way.

Like I said before....EVERY priority ticket holder had so called "promises" made to them about seat location before reseating. Endowed Donors aren't more special in that regard than the rest of us. We were ALL always told that we would be able to have first shot at our same seats.

The only thing that makes them special is their physical contract, and none of those that I've ever seen anybody share says anything like they "always get the best seats" or even specifies a certain location at all within the stadium.

DP

Many EDs had it in writing, right? The weren't "so called" promises. They were contractual promises. A promise is a promise. There is no "so called". Apparently the contracts where poorly written, so it hasn't proven hard for the TMF to break the contracts. Makes you wonder what the case would be if these so called "bad Ags" who are litigating their contractual agreements had insisted on better written contracts in the first place?