Communication, communication not minimal talk with a few ED driven by directions from a PR firm . The only thing coming from those talks which were one way talks was "be a good Ag and fall in line ". Well some did not .

quote:

---

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?

---

In case you aren't aware (although it has been pointed out many, many times before), the TMF promised all donors, in writing, that they would keep their seats so long as they made the required minimum donation which would only increase by a certain percentage on an annual basis. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that this is a written contract just as much as the contracts that the endowed donors had (it was accepted by donors making donations in reliance upon this offer). Certainly, the terms were different, but that doesn't mean that non-endowed donors had a less important promise, or one less worthy of protection. So, get off the high horse about the endowed agreements being some kind of sacred bond. They are contracts that are no longer capable of performance just like the promises made to other donors, and while there is a legitimate dispute between the parties over how best to fulfill those contracts (or damages in the event that no agreement can be reached), this is not some kind of heretical act, or living manifestation of evil as you are making it out to be.

Why is it so hard to understand that the stadium is being COMPLETELY RECONFIGURED......those 2nd deck seats between the 30's that were bench seats are now seats connected to a club........I guess they should have offered you your 2nd deck 30 yard line seats on the student side to truly keep their promise. That's why this is so insane.......it's completely unreasonable thinking for some to think that a complete reconfiguratoin should also keep 1,800 seats inthe exact same place.

I calculated it earlier in this thread----1,800 of the west club seats between the 30's will bring in $100M over the next 10 years I believe, from the one time donation and annual donations.

Also, he couldn't keep a promise b/c he gave a LIFE promise-----you can't predict 40 years into the future and it was ridiculous to think Kyle Field would never need a refurbishment, rebuild in the next 40 years or lifetime of the ED's. That's why it was a promise he couldn't keep.

This is all sad b/c it's created factions-----but seroiusly that was the dumbest promise ever b/c the guy basically made a promise he kne he woudln't have to live with, and it was a promise that no fundraising organization can ever make-----lifetime donations kill fundraising groups. there is a reason even those paying $10M for a suite have a timeline they can have it and all seats have a timeline. I gues syou live and learn.

Their promises were in an endowed section not contractually specified seats. The TMF was not required to give them upgrades for free. The donors making the west side possible are just as important as those that made the now demolished third deck possible. Enjoy the privileges you had and continue to receive from the one time donation.

twk, I'm capable of understanding plenty, we've both been around here awhile, that kind of personal snark is beneath you.

I contract, by name, signed, is different from a notice in a bulk mailout or on a ticket receipt. Sorry, it is.

Also, while seat location is one issue, free seats forever is another. Were permanent free seats, anywhere, offered to the EDs?

And the lack of specificity in the contracts is a part of what made them poorly written and fairly easy to abrogate. I've no doubt. the lawsuits will fail.

However, (and pardon me for adopting your words) you seem incapable of understanding that none of that is the point. The point is that the EDs should have been brought into the discussions at a preliminary stage, personally, and substantively. However, egos took a bigger role. The egos of some in the TMF that resented the EDs and had waited for years to "get them". And the egos of the EDs who had been promised free seats forever and aren't getting them.

quote:

---

Also, while seat location is one issue, free seats forever is another. Were permanent free seats, anywhere, offered to the EDs?

---

Is "free seats forever" a valid contractual term in this state? Is it even a valid promise one should expect to be fulfilled?

quote:

---

The point is that the EDs should have been brought into the discussions at a preliminary stage, personally, and substantively.
However, egos took a bigger role. The egos of some in the TMF that
resented the EDs and had waited for years to "get them". And the egos of
the EDs who had been promised free seats forever and aren't getting
them.

---

Do you think the TMF reaching out to 1,700 EDs (or whatever the # might be) to get their thoughts would lead to any
conclusive decision? You would have as many varying opinions as you
have EDs.

In any event, the TMF BOD is in place to make decisions. That's what they're elected to do, and that's what they did. It's business, not personal! Do you think a company should reach out to its preferred shareholders to get their thoughts on a potential acquisition?

quote:

---

The point is that the EDs should have been brought into the discussions at a preliminary stage, personally, and substantively. However, egos took a bigger role. The egos of some in the TMF that resented the EDs and had waited for years to "get them". And the egos of the EDs who had been promised free seats forever and aren't getting them.

---

I would agree with most of that, although I'm not sure about the "out to get" part. Doubtless, there were some folks at the TMF who felt like the endowed donors had been lapped by many annual contributors, and felt that the TMF's offer was enough. One can certainly argue that the TMF should have taken more steps to appease the endowed donors, but anyone who simply castigates the TMF for their actions in this matter is off base. Statements like the following...

quote:

---

A "promise that can't be kept" is 100% the responsibility of the promiser, not the promised

---

...not only misstate the law, but also seem to indicate a desire to pain the TMF and A&M in the worst possible light. It's a tough situation with no easy solution. I understand where both sides are coming from.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The point is that the EDs should have been brought into the discussions at a preliminary stage, personally, and substantively.

---

Do you think the TMF reaching out to 1,700 EDs (or whatever the # might be) to get their thoughts would lead to any conclusive decision? You would have as many varying opinions as you have EDs.

---

Cecil - thank you for your input. I really appreciate seeing it from your side since I'm LOLZpoor.

That being said - what exactly would you expect from bringing the ED's into a dialogue with the TMF earlier? A big meeting where all the EDs scream at Miles Mark? What would that achieve? As was said in the above reply, some type of engagement from the TMF to the EDs would have been a Charlie Foxtrot of epic proportions.

Jeez, this subject is tired. Whole lot of experts that don't know any actual facts.

quote:

---

It's a tough situation with no easy solution. I understand where both sides are coming from.

---

This.

I think that the assumption that either side are "bad folks" is wrong. These good Ags that sacrificially gave many years ago are now expected to be unreasonable if they are included in the process? Sorry, but that's no more reasonable than portraying the TMF as big bad meanies.

Ego is a powerful thing. Most all of us have one. Assuaging egos goes a long, long way to solving most human interactions. IMO many EDs felt ignored in the process. Spending the time and money to bring them into the process, yes individually if necessary, would have (again, IMO) been cheaper and more productive to the school (and coincidentally perhaps have increased additional moneys from the EDs) had a more proactive and considerate attitude been adopted by the TMF.

cecil,
Fair points, but also, often when you bring people in, and then make a decision they don't like (b/c let's face it there was no solution possible that woudl appease all), then it actually pisses them off even more and you are more screwed

Someone is going to have pay the TMF attorneys and it won't be Skip Wagner or those guys. It will be us. They're suing us.

Exactly.

This horse is beat dead already.

But yeah, they're suing us. They are good Ags just like the rest of us. How far would YOU have to be pushed to take this kind of action?

And, I just realized something. I was around in the mid 80's when a bunch of these were purchased. Awarded at midfield during games. Much appreciation (it's hard for some of you to imagine just how much $30,000 was back then) . I even remember when Coach Sherrill was awarded his. It was VERY clear during those presentations that these tickets were "forever". I guess having heard those things, gives me a different perspective.

This is exactly why Miles was replaced with the head of the take no prisoners Houston Rodeo.

$30,000 was a lot of money and more importantly
interest rates for a 10 year US note were in the 10%-14% range

quote:

---

$30,000 was a lot of money and more importantly
interest rates for a 10 year US note were in the 10%-14% range

---

At the next endowment phase, when the four seat endowment went to $40,000, one seat was valued the same as a $2,000 annual donation at the 12th Man donor level. The 40k was corpus and the investment income was used to pay the annual donation.

The ED's were offered their original investment or a $2,000 per year per seat credit to be applied to seats. Forever. It does not appear that anyone had a written agreement for specific seats, only a general understanding that would get to keep the seats they originally picked. That is the same agreement 5,000 other Aggies had in regard to keeping their seats at the same donation level with only inflation adjustments. Why do 99.9% of the ED's and 5,000 other "loyal Aggies who committed when money was hard to come by" understand what is going on and a handful feel entitled to more? Why can't I, along with 5,000 other Aggies, keep my exact seats in the same "virtual space" for the same donation level? It's because the old stadium doesn't exist and a new stadium could not be built if the TMF kept my original deal.

There are a few things the TMF could have done to take things over the top for the ED's. But as things sit they have been more than fair. No one is getting "screwed" and the Aggie Code of Honor is not being violated.

I agree with some of that, but not all.

I believe some did have written contracts.

And, a large part of it was the initial attitude on the part of the TMF. So, yes, the TMF did not handle this as well as they could have.

Lastly, as has been mentioned in this very thread, a significant number of EDs were angry, but just chose not to sue. 5% being mad enough to sue is ample indication that many, if not most, of the EDs were dissatisfied to some extent.

Benjamin Franklin said it best:

quote:

---

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes!"

---

Guess what, Endowed Donors: Aggie football tickets and parking are not part of those certainties. To really, REALLY believe Aggie tickets would be exactly the same for life is very naive.

quote:

---

If the dollar amount of the mid-80s donation was adjusted for inflation, where would the new seat be located? It seems to me that the people who signed a contract should be sitting with people who donate a comparable amount, today...

---

Sounds fair.

But not the price of general inflation. Need to peg it to the inflation of the price of sporting event tickets, specifically college football.

It's not their fault that everyone else has taken an interest into the activity that they have been supporting for decades.

The world, Aggieland, and sports today are significantly different than they were when ED's were created and I think beyond imagition. 20 years after ED's were created the Houston Texans were still selling permanent Private Seat Licenses that could be sold to others in later years at market rates determined by the seller and buyer outside of the Texans. Only a few later did people wake up to the reality of this permanent commitment and the Cowboys set a limit on the PSLs which became the new normal (others may have made teh switch between the Texans and Cowboys). I now idea waht will happen when the Texans want to remove seats for suites, clubs etc. Maybe tehy will have to buy back the PSLs at market rates.

Permanent/ Lifetime commitments have been made forever. You have bought your house on the premise that you will own the land forever or have the right to sell it in the future. This was established way before anyone of us and this agreement continues today. Now when the state (which ultimately granted the original owner the land) needs to take it back for roads or whatever, there is a process for that and "fair" compensation is made. That basis is debated all the time, but is it is not made on the value when the rights wre first granted.

quote:

---

Benjamin Franklin said it best:

quote:

---

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes!"

---

Guess what, Endowed Donors: Aggie football tickets and parking are not part of those certainties. To really, REALLY believe Aggie tickets would be exactly the same for life is very naive.

---

To be clear, the ED's pretty much do have "tickets for life". Go look at the chart and see what a $2,000 per year, per seat credit gets you. The bottom of the new 3rd deck is at the same approximate "virtual space" as the top 25 percent of the old second deck. So, these guys could have had, for no additional annual contribution, armchair seats at the bottom of the new third deck that equaled the virtual space of the top of the old second deck. They would have to pay a capital contribution, like EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON sitting in that stadium. But at the end of the day, that's as close to the same seats as you can get. But wait a minute - since I was on the old second deck, on row x and seat y, I should get that same row, seat number and yard line on the new second deck. Really? EVERYBODY is moving and we all had commitments that we would have our seats forever in our old, East German/Soviet era stadium that didn't meet code and was going to need massive, expensive infrastructure modifications. Four 50 yard line club seats are 60k up front and 16k per year and you have to buy the tickets. The math just doesn't work to give the four upgraded, prime club seats to someone who will generate $900 per year in revenue in an endowment. With the free tickets some of the ED's receive, there is negative revenue of a few thousand dollars right now to "honor our commitment". You don't build 485 million dollar stadiums that way. Unless you're Obama, but that's another rant.

The parking is another issue. THE MAJORITY OF THE REAL ESTATE IN LOT A IS GONE. Should we not have built the new stadium so some guy that donated 30k thirty years ago doesn't have to walk the extra 200 yards from the new endowed parking lot? And I would bet cash money that if an elderly person couldn't legitimately walk the extra 200 yards that the TMF would probably pick them up in a golf cart and drive them over to the door.

I think a lot of people are jumping on the TMF for not treating them fairly and that is not fair to the TMF.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If the dollar amount of the mid-80s donation was adjusted for inflation, where would the new seat be located? It seems to me that the people who signed a contract should be sitting with people who donate a comparable amount, today...

---

Sounds fair.

But not the price of general inflation. Need to peg it to the inflation of the price of sporting event tickets, specifically college football.

It's not their fault that everyone else has taken an interest into the activity that they have been supporting for decades.

---

The "written contracts" state that they will sit in an endowed area. It does not say in a written agreement where that section is located. So if you want to go to implied, verbal agreements, another 5,000 loyal Aggies also need an inflation adjusted algorithm to determine where they get to sit.

But then there is no new stadium and we have bigger problems than we have now with the five guys that are suing.

What really gets to me in this reseating of Kyle is the total distain by some of the members of the board of trustees of the 12thman going back to 2005 . ( not much new stadium talk during Fran's tenure). How at that time there was an effort put worth to eliminate and take away benefits from the ED that they were promised as some thought their donations covered as stated in the majority of those that had written contracts .These benefits were then being used as benefits to others to raise money . All of this is put forth in minutes from closed door meetings of the trustees obtained by the litigates in the law suits . This type of attitude toward donors at that time and continuing now by the board makes me want to rethink my commitment to the 12th man . It has taken away my desire to support the 12th man not the student athletes .My distain does not come from selecting new seats , I could get the best seat in my section and still have this feeling , you communicate with your customers not feed them BS . It been done now and it will be done again .

quote:

---

Permanent/ Lifetime commitments have been made forever. You have bought your house on the premise that you will own the land forever or have the right to sell it in the future. This was established way before anyone of us and this agreement continues today. Now when the state (which ultimately granted the original owner the land) needs to take it back for roads or whatever, there is a process for that and "fair" compensation is made. That basis is debated all the time, but is it is not made on the value when the rights wre first granted.

---

Good analogy!

In my experience since graduating, the TMF has almost always skirted communication with a majority of donors and sucks at PR. That's why this situation doesn't really surprise me that much.

quote:

---

In my experience since graduating, the TMF has almost always skirted communication with a majority of donors and sucks at PR. That's why this situation doesn't really surprise me that much.

---

I have not had that experience. I am not that high on the food chain and they have always been responsive to me.

I would give them a bit of a pass when they are trying to build and reseat a stadium and having to communicate with 9,500 donors. There are a lot of moving parts right now.

Should they be better at PR? Maybe, but their mission is to raise money for the athletic program. I suppose part of that is to make the donors feel warm and fuzzy but at the end of the day they have proven to be pretty strong at raising money. And having money is the only way we can position ourselves to be successful.

.

Gary correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your father - in-law ( Stormy Kimrey) a former president of the 12thMF ? If that indeed is the case then your statement ( you aren't high on the food chain ) rings a little hollow and your undying support seems a little suspicious.

quote:

---

Gary correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your father - in-law ( Stormy Kimrey) a former president of the 12thMF ? If that indeed is the case then your statement ( you aren't high on the food chain ) rings a little hollow and your undying support seems a little suspicious.

---

Stormy is not my father in law but he is a good friend. I did cut his grass when I was a kid in San Angelo but I don't feel like that gets me any preferential treatment from the TMF.

My bad I apologize.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gary correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your father - in-law ( Stormy Kimrey) a former president of the 12thMF ? If that indeed is the case then your statement ( you aren't high on the food chain ) rings a little hollow and your undying support seems a little suspicious.

---

Stormy is not my father in law but he is a good friend. I did cut his grass when I was a kid in San Angelo but I don't feel like that gets me any preferential treatment from the TMF.

---

After reflecting a bit, I remembered that one day I accidently mowed over one of Stormy's newly planted pecan trees. When I went to his office to tell him the news he was great and told me not to worry about it. Now I wonder if he secretly has sabotaged my influence with the TMF as a retribution. But they are responsive to me yet they still reseated me and jacked up my donation amounts..

There's a lot to think about here.

I understand the need to reseat the staium and also understand the need to raise money and reward the current influx of big (or larger) money donors with better seating. However I'm bitter about the process and opted out of buying season tickets in the new stadium. As a long time season ticket holder my required donation to maintian my seats was signifcantly lower than new arrivals and as such my prioiry points did not grow as fast and high as others, thus when my time came to select a section the only thing left was upper south endzone which was significant downgrade in seat in location. I was willing to pony up the money required by new stadium, but to a section of comprable view. Round one should have limted you to your current alloment or at most double, but not 12 in each section. That casued tickets to go fast. When 2% of North endzone is gone on day one you know there is an issue.

I feel for the ED's and do not kow how would be reacting if I was in their shoes since I am not aware of how there treated and what offers were made.

quote:

---

My bad I apologize.

---

No problem, Charlie. As far as "undying support" I would say that I am a "call it like I see it" kind of guy and I am not blindly supporting the decisions of the TMF. Did the TMF do this deal perfectly? No. But they have done a pretty nice job when all things are considered.

I do get a little frustrated when people act like the TMF are a bunch of jerks trying to screw the common man. It get a little old and when that theme is constantly repeated without rebuttal I feel that affects the general disposition of the average Aggie towards the TMF in a negative way. And I don't think that contributes to the greater good.

Again, I just believe they did the best they could do and made a few mistakes along the way as a result of the scope of the project. And I would say it would have been impossible to have done this perfectly.