AU Sports Having To Cut Budgets 10%

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

15 minutes ago, TigerFanAU said:

Sounds like we got some people up in here who go out to dinner every night, and have financed their $80,000 GMC Denali for 10 years at 8.50%, just to fit in. 

I like the suggested cuts by Greene, especially the travel cuts-- fiscal responsibility is important. If its an especially long trip, then maybe make an exception. But I seriously doubt a recruit is going to make his decision based on what restaurant he will be eating at on a road trip. Same with a bus ride -- they're all going to be on their I-Phones the whole time anyhow, plane or bus.

More important is to get the football-only facility and upgrade our existing facilities! That's where players and coaches will spend the majority of their time, not at Outback in Gainesville, FL. 

Nevertheless, its good to see Greene sticking his neck out there and making decisions. Its the best way to judge his performance and get a read on him, good or bad.

Wasn't the JJ regime infamous for hiring way too many employees? Seems redundant positions and their salaries would be pretty high up on the chopping block, not smoothies, paper, and team meals. How much can we possibly be spending on smoothies and paper? 

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, TigerFanAU said:

It did come out kind of backwards, but I though Greene's follow up comments cleared it up nicely. He's looking for ways to cut costs. Not because we're in fiscal trouble, but being responsible. It sounds like Greene is really focused on the big picture, which is upgrading our facilities. Time will tell.

With you on all of that.

 

 

[keesler 5,924]

15 minutes ago, TigerFanAU said:

It did come out kind of backwards, but I though Greene's follow up comments cleared it up nicely. He's looking for ways to cut costs. Not because we're in fiscal trouble, but being responsible. It sounds like Greene is really focused on the big picture, which is upgrading our facilities. Time will tell.

I also though Greene's response was clear and concise and I think he has a real vision for the future for Auburn athletics.

The article mentions, "The Board of Trustees recently asked to fast-track the FOF building, but the athletic department has struggled to make any firm commitments.  It simply doesn't have enough money to fund a $70million project - even one that deserves fast-tracking."  We've heard that from 65 to 75% of the funds have been pledged for the FOF, so I wonder what the holdup is an why the AD has struggled to make any firm commitments?

 

[AlaskanFAN 1,665]

1 hour ago, warladytigers said:

Just a reminder - athletics doesn't get it's funding from the state.

That is correct, but they do get Allocated Revenue from the school. 

[keesler 5,924]

On 6/28/2019 at 9:30 AM, WalkingCarpet said:

Wasn't the JJ regime infamous for hiring way too many employees? Seems redundant positions and their salaries would be pretty high up on the chopping block, not smoothies, paper, and team meals. How much can we possibly be spending on smoothies and paper? 

IIRC, Greene cut half a dozen staffers a year ago:

Among those let go were chief communications officer Ward Swift, senior associate athletic directors Bernard Hill and David Mines, senior women’s administrator Meredith Jenkins and chief revenue officer Michael McBride, the source said.

I feel sure if he's asking every coach to cut 10% off their budget that he is probably planning to do the same with his own staff & personnel and office operations.

[AlaskanFAN 1,665]

https://auburn.rivals.com/news/adob-auburn-tigers-football-auburn-tigers-basketball-allen-greene

Former athletic director Jay Jacobs left Auburn 18 months ago providing assurances that all was well with the school's athletic department.

"We've been very fortunate, particularly the last three years, we've put record numbers in surplus," Jacobs said in a piece posted to the university's website. "We have to continue to do that because the cost of college athletics continues to inflate."

That inflation is now swallowing that surplus. And now it's time for a reckoning.

Current athletic director Allen Greene, hired in January 2018, recently took the unusual step of cutting all program budgets by 10 percent. This is believed to be the first time Auburn has taken such a drastic step as a department — and it's sure to elicit concern throughout the Auburn sphere.

How can a program like Auburn's, which generates revenues of nearly $150 million, suddenly find itself in need of belt-tightening?

The answer is tricky.

"We are reallocating our budgets and making priority investments to build on our future," Greene said in a statement to AuburnSports.com. "By becoming more efficient, it will allow for us to commit to the things that are most impactful to our department: the student-athlete experience, elite-level coaching staffs and current and future facility upgrades."

Let's start here: Revenues are flat across the league these days. The Southeastern Conference enjoyed an unrivaled surge in earnings while the SEC Network, launched in August 2014, grew like a weed. Carriage rates were (and are) sky high, but SEC fans have an insatiable appetite when it comes to coverage of their favorite teams.

The network now is close to reaching maximum market penetration, which has affected athletic departments insofar as revenues are leveling off. The era of spectacular growth is nearing its end.

Auburn didn't prioritize capital spending during the halcyon days. Jacobs serially flirted with the idea of revamping the north end zone of Jordan-Hare Stadium, but never settled on an actionable plan. He spoke of the need for a new, football-only facility, but never settled on an actionable plan. So he committed instead to a stop-gap solution — a $28-million renovation to the locker room and recruiting areas. It was completed last summer and has become the football program's exclusive spot to host recruits.

Still, football needs more. The Board of Trustees recently asked to fast-track the football-only building, but the athletic department has struggled to make any firm commitments.

It simply doesn't have enough money to fund a $70-million project — even one that deserves to be fast-tracked.

 

 

 

 

 

Auburn Arena, which was completed in 2010, is the department's most recent, major facility upgrade. (Todd Van Emst/Auburn U.)

WINNING PAYS (AND INFLATES) THE BILLS

Auburn has been quite successful on the field during the past six months. Men's basketball made the Final Four, baseball made the College World Series, equestrian won a national title, women's golf advanced to match play at nationals, men's golf qualified for nationals, gymnastics qualified for its first-ever Sweet Sixteen.

Winning is the goal. It's a good thing by almost any measure.

Winning also can be costly. The NCAA reimbursed Auburn for travel to the Final Four, but that trip still went over budget by $500,000. The trip to Omaha was costly. All travel is costly.

Those coaches are making more money as well. Greene recently rewarded Bruce Pearl with a richer contract. Baseball coach Butch Thompson received a raise and an extension last summer. Auburn doesn't cut corners when it comes to paying its coaches; almost all are above the league average.

The costs, which includes winning costs, are mounting.

That's where Greene began sensing the need to reshuffle the department's financial priorities — retaining successful coaches, upgrading facilities and giving athletes what they need to thrive both as competitors and students.

He doesn't see his 10-percent edict as a budget cut per se. This is more of a philosophical pivot, one that asks coaches to think more deeply about where their money goes. Do they need to be lodged at a high-rise hotel downtown or will a three-night stay at a suburban Courtyard have the same effect on the team's ability to win games?

Do they need to eat at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse or would Outback be good enough?

Do they need the university jet to fly to Knoxville or will a six-hour bus ride suffice?

These are the kinds of questions Greene wants his coaches to ponder moving forward. If they need to spend a little extra to impress an important group of recruits during an official visit, well, the money is there. That extra expenditure may need to be offset by a more spendthrift decision down the road. That's the new paradigm.

Greene believes this scale-back will free up money to help fund projects like the football-only facility, like the Plainsman Park upgrades that recently were put on hold, like a centralized sports-medicine hub. They all demand attention.

Still, Greene is quick to quell speculation that Auburn's finances are flagging. He says this effort really is about re-allocation.

"We are very fortunate that Auburn Athletics is on solid footing," he said Thursday. "As we position ourselves for the future, being more intentional about how we leverage our resources will be critical."

 

 

 

 

 

Is Gus Malzahn affecting the school's ability to raise money for capital projects? (Troy Taormina/USA TODAY Sports)

THE MALZAHN FACTOR

Some observers will wonder if this new paradigm is rooted in Gus Malzahn's troubles. After all, fundraising for the football-only facility has been stymied by skepticism — potential donors withholding money either out of frustration with Malzahn or a belief that their donation will be used to fund a Malzahn buyout should one be triggered rather than the new building.

For his part, Greene says this has nothing to do with football in any direct sense.

With that said, Malzahn's predicament nonetheless matters. If the Tigers fail in 2019 and the school chooses to fire Malzahn, it will owe him approximately $25 million. Half of that will be due within 30 days of termination.

If Greene's budgets are shaken by travel overruns, surplus tickets from the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game last year and Jay Jacobs' $2.5-million buyout, Malzahn's severance package would be a cataclysmic development.

That's all speculation, of course. The Tigers could run the table this season, which would alleviate some problems. At a minimum, donors would be less fraught with concern over Malzahn's spotty record since the 2017 Iron Bowl. Revenues surely would trend upward.

Greene would love to see that happen. All of it.

Still, he must prepare for everything.

That's his predicament. Always the same predicament.

[McLoofus 35,182]

17 minutes ago, WalkingCarpet said:

Ok I'm feeling better about this now. Why couldn't we lead with this when the news broke instead of losing control of the narrative like always? 

Hopefully a learning moment for Greene. I had hoped that PR savvy would be a strong suit for him, but "We didn't think it was a big deal" seems a bit naive. 

 

[AU64 10,122]

41 minutes ago, WalkingCarpet said:

Ok I'm feeling better about this now. Why couldn't we lead with this when the news broke instead of losing control of the narrative like always? 

yep..first thing we see...blame Leath, blame Gus, blame JJ and excuse AG before any facts were released.   Nice to finally get the real story and see that AG is doing what he should  have been doing.   I've been involved in draconian budget cuts in the past...no fun....but over time it's easy for people in management to get complacent about spending money when it seems to be so readily available.  Companies need a change of management from time to time just to get someone looking at past history and whether financial controls are adequate.  The fact that there is a lot of money available does not mean that someone should  not question how it get's spent.  Good for AG …..

[Mike4AU 1,739]

My first reaction to this news was not favorable, but after thinking a lot about it I think spending was out of control and AG is reigning it in.  AG is bringing fiscal responsibility to a department that was fiscally irresponsible.  

The next thing AD needs to do is find out who the leakers are and fire them (unless they are board members)...not sure what he could do in that situation. 

[AU64 10,122]

4 minutes ago, Mike4AU said:

My first reaction to this news was not favorable, but after thinking a lot about it I think spending was out of control and AG is reigning it in.  AG is bringing fiscal responsibility to a department that was fiscally irresponsible.  

The next thing AD needs to do is find out who the leakers are and fire them (unless they are board members)...not sure what he could do in that situation. 

AU is a public university....the information should be open to the public....no reason to fire "leakers"....only issue to me is that nobody got ahead of the story and thus allow rumors to flourish ….which did no one any good.   This is on AG or some PR person in the department but IMO, if you make that kind of cut across the board, everyone is gonna talk about it.....

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

AU is a public university....the information should be open to the public....no reason to fire "leakers"....only issue to me is that nobody got ahead of the story and thus allow rumors to flourish ….which did no one any good.   This is on AG or some PR person in the department but IMO, if you make that kind of cut across the board, everyone is gonna talk about it.....

Totally agree. You and I have talked about it before and I expressed optimism that this would be the kind of thing that AG would help us out with. I consider this a PR failure, if not directly on him then definitely on his watch. Same difference. He's the boss. 

PS- Wouldn't be surprised in the least if Leath has loose lips these days. Wild conjecture on my part, for sure. But his was obviously not an amicable departure. 

[Mike4AU 1,739]

It WAS a leak and was intended to do harm.  The motive of the leaking is why the leaker should be fired.  

[keesler 5,924]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Hopefully a learning moment for Greene. I had hoped that PR savvy would be a strong suit for him, but "We didn't think it was a big deal" seems a bit naive. 

 

He witnessed first hand how things leak out of his department in Dec of last year.  He will learn (possibly the hard way) that HE needs to be the first to break things like this.   Certainly NOT Phillip Marshall or any other beat writer for AU.

[aujeff11 6,243]

37 minutes ago, AU64 said:

AU is a public university....the information should be open to the public....no reason to fire "leakers"

What was leaked?

 

4 minutes ago, keesler said:

He witnessed first hand how things leak out of his department in Dec of last year.  He will learn (possibly the hard way) that HE needs to be the first to break things like this.   Certainly NOT Phillip Marshall or any other beat writer for AU.

Greene has nonchalantly said things in the past not knowing what he was saying would spread like wildfire. He’s still got some learning to do. 

[steeleagle 2,945]

37 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

What was leaked?

 

Greene has nonchalantly said things in the past not knowing what he was saying would spread like wildfire. He’s still got some learning to do. 

I think some here use this term loosely to indicate that we had to hear it first from a reporter FIRST, then an interview w/ AD Greene by Jay g Tate helped expand and clarify the cut's purpose.

I guess they wanted to strictly hear Greene handle it more strategically, and not look like an oh....#$%& moment.

[GwillMac6 20,666]

LOL of course. Typical Auburn. Forming a committee to decide if we should do something that is obvious.......... The circus never stops. Same ol ish.

 

[dyehardfanAU 2,117]

12 minutes ago, GwillMac6 said:

LOL of course. Typical Auburn. Forming a committee to decide if we should do something that is obvious.......... The circus never stops. Same ol ish.

 

I don't think they're determining if it should be done but whether how it should be done and what it will include.

[GwillMac6 20,666]

1 minute ago, dyehardfanAU said:

I don't think they're determining if it should be done but whether how it should be done and what it will include.

LOL at Auburn? That would make way to much sense and be totally logical. We have been kicking this Football only facility down the road for several years. I will not believe it is actually happening till ground is broke.

[dyehardfanAU 2,117]

24 minutes ago, GwillMac6 said:

LOL at Auburn? That would make way to much sense and be totally logical. We have been kicking this Football only facility down the road for several years. I will not believe it is actually happening till ground is broke.

I don't disagree that this phase should've started 5-10 years ago.

[AU64 10,122]

4 hours ago, Mike4AU said:

It WAS a leak and was intended to do harm.  The motive of the leaking is why the leaker should be fired.  

How could it have been a leak?.....hundreds of people must have known about it if it affected all sports...and no way it could have been a secret.  Seems that if any of the beat writers were doing their jobs, the word would have been out long time ago....and as noted, AG really dropped the ball not getting his "reasoning" out to the public before the subject showed up in the papers.  

JMO but the only reason anyone "looked bad" was because they dropped the ball....a good learning experience that really did no harm to anyone. 

Again...my objection is the "across the board" nature of the cuts which hits the frugal as hard as the profligate....and is a lazy way to make budget cuts. 

[Mike4AU 1,739]

I swear.  Beat writers are not part of Auburn’s athletic department.  The only way they knew about this was someone leaked it to them.  The harm is because recruiting rivals will say the sky is falling at Auburn. 

Yes, AG should have controlled the message long ago. Now I am sure he knows some folks in the AD or above are gunning for him. Maybe  because he is busting up their playhouse. 

And, yes, 10% cutbacks are an extremely lazy way to reduce costs. I have seen these sorts of cutbacks in my career and have always thought they were sophomoric and fail to address with specificity known problem areas and people. 

[ellitor 33,085]

1 hour ago, GwillMac6 said:

LOL of course. Typical Auburn. Forming a committee to decide if we should do something that is obvious.

[ellitor 33,085]

1 hour ago, dyehardfanAU said:

I don't think they're determining if it should be done but whether how it should be done and what it will include.

Yeah. Since our HC wants something done but no clue on a real ideas or a plan.

[aujeff11 6,243]

19 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Yeah. Since our HC wants something done but no clue on a real ideas or a plan.

So? Let’s not forget the construction and the architecture of the FOF is above him.  He has no say and he doesn’t want any say despite the fake news going around. 

[ellitor 33,085]

1 minute ago, aujeff11 said:

So? Let’s not forget the construction and the architecture of the FOF is above him.  He has no say and he doesn’t want any say despite the fake news going around. 

Where it came from is not fake news And him or any HC should have an idea of at least particular parts to tell the people who will design it. When asked for a plan or ideas for him to basically say, "I don't know. I just want a football-only facility,"" is asinine.