|
Post by wishbone on Nov 3, 2019 20:03:30 GMT -5
I’m not sure of the exact terms but from what I remember, there was more to it than just the $$. There were terms that the GICAA demanded that they really had no leverage to request.
As for the $, it would have been a really dubious decision for the GISA to assume that much debt without getting anything of value in return. Idk if that amount constitutes financial trouble for the organization. No idea what kind of revenue either association generates yearly.
|
|
|
Post by mdl on Nov 4, 2019 10:44:22 GMT -5
I’m not sure of the exact terms but from what I remember, there was more to it than just the $$. There were terms that the GICAA demanded that they really had no leverage to request. As for the $, it would have been a really dubious decision for the GISA to assume that much debt without getting anything of value in return. Idk if that amount constitutes financial trouble for the organization. No idea what kind of revenue either association generates yearly. With a breakdown of merger negotiations of any type there are generally things one side or the other wants that the other side doesn’t feel they can give. Was just wondering why the debt is what people latch onto (maybe it’s just the nature of money) when they talk about the breakdown? I mean it could be something as benign as a mortgage on the building they operate out of.....which would be of course have to still get taken care of in event of a merger. That would be very normal....I can see why GISA might not want to take it on, but it would hardly be scandalous debt. Now, if it’s for something stupid or for a boat so the head of the GICAA (gapps) can take his buddies fishing (which would be scandalous). I could see why people are ripping on the debt. Just seems like some are taking the worst possible interpretation of it, but I haven’t see anybody talk about what the debt was taken out for.
|
|
|
Post by firedawg113 on Nov 4, 2019 12:04:05 GMT -5
This old vent new vent has me curious, I lurked over there to see if I could find this post but could not. Do you older venters have a link to this post or has it been removed by the mods that ran you guys away for that site?
|
|
|
Post by IntelliVent on Nov 4, 2019 14:21:50 GMT -5
I cannot for the life of me understand why a fledgling non-profit organization of typically cash strapped private schools would incur any significant debt at all!
It would be grossly unwise to have a mortgage on a building that exceeded $200k when there is plenty of office space for rent in Fayette County, GA which would not bind the organization to long term (or short term) debt. How much could office equipment cost for such a small operation? How many employees are there? (It looks like GISA has 6).
If GAPPS has 100 schools signed up, how much would each have to pony up every year for membership? The GICAA video used to boast that the schools got paid their membership cost back if there was an operating budget surplus.
I can't think of any sensible, responsible reason why a non-profit organization with voluntary memberships on the part of participating schools would generate any sizeable debt whatsoever. The ONLY reason I could see there being this kind of debt ($250k per wishbone) is that money was borrowed for working capital to equip the office and pay salaries for a period of time under that well-touted assumption that hundreds of schools in GA, AL, FL, and SC would be joining in future. That WAS a significant talking point 3 years ago. What, with all the level playing field, reduced travel to compete, christian atmosphere, and hard nosed management from HQ that was promised.
|
|
|
Post by IntelliVent on Nov 4, 2019 14:24:01 GMT -5
This old vent new vent has me curious, I lurked over there to see if I could find this post but could not. Do you older venters have a link to this post or has it been removed by the mods that ran you guys away for that site? There was 1 mod who gained control of the site and ruined it. That's why we left. Anything he didn't like, he capriciously deleted. Complaints did no good and in fact resulted in punitive action for complaining. So now you have the story straight.
|
|
|
Post by firedawg113 on Nov 4, 2019 14:32:57 GMT -5
This old vent new vent has me curious, I lurked over there to see if I could find this post but could not. Do you older venters have a link to this post or has it been removed by the mods that ran you guys away for that site? There was 1 mod who gained control of the site and ruined it. That's why we left. Anything he didn't like, he capriciously deleted. Complaints did no good and in fact resulted in punitive action for complaining. So now you have the story straight. Yep I've seen this comment from several old venters about the mod on the old vent site, my real question is there anywhere still posted on the old vent site that can be linked on the GICAA debt so others can understand or is that information lost?
|
|
|
Post by tapanther15 on Nov 4, 2019 14:46:05 GMT -5
There was 1 mod who gained control of the site and ruined it. That's why we left. Anything he didn't like, he capriciously deleted. Complaints did no good and in fact resulted in punitive action for complaining. So now you have the story straight. Yep I've seen this comment from several old venters about the mod on the old vent site, my real question is there anywhere still posted on the old vent site that can be linked on the GICAA debt so others can understand or is that information lost? Possibly but you’d have to some digging if it wasn’t deleted by now since no one has been consistently posting on the site in about a year or two
|
|
|
Post by mdl on Nov 4, 2019 15:30:31 GMT -5
I cannot for the life of me understand why a fledgling non-profit organization of typically cash strapped private schools would incur any significant debt at all! It would be grossly unwise to have a mortgage on a building that exceeded $200k when there is plenty of office space for rent in Fayette County, GA which would not bind the organization to long term (or short term) debt. How much could office equipment cost for such a small operation? How many employees are there? (It looks like GISA has 6). If GAPPS has 100 schools signed up, how much would each have to pony up every year for membership? The GICAA video used to boast that the schools got paid their membership cost back if there was an operating budget surplus. I can't think of any sensible, responsible reason why a non-profit organization with voluntary memberships on the part of participating schools would generate any sizeable debt whatsoever. The ONLY reason I could see there being this kind of debt ($250k per wishbone) is that money was borrowed for working capital to equip the office and pay salaries for a period of time under that well-touted assumption that hundreds of schools in GA, AL, FL, and SC would be joining in future. That WAS a significant talking point 3 years ago. What, with all the level playing field, reduced travel to compete, christian atmosphere, and hard nosed management from HQ that was promised. Getting a mortgage vs. renting office space can make sense....plenty of businesses (non-profit or otherwise) do it. If that is what the debt is. Now I know it doesn’t fit the narrative of “GICAA is in financial trouble because of debt” that you have put out there continually. But, if it’s mortgage debt it’s not crazy talk on the GICAA’s part to do it.....maybe renting would be better, but most of us do prefer to buy our property vs. renting I totally agree that it would be irresponsible and in fact scandalous if they took out the debt to pay operating expenses. However, a bank giving out an unconlaterialized loan (backed by merely the GICAA’s word on paying) is by far the least likely loan they could get. Banks have a right to know what you are borrowing money for and do ask....if you answer: “we need the money to pay salaries, because our cash flow isn’t good enough” ....well they are just gonna not loan it to you. Banks aren’t stupid. Make no mistake scandal is possible. But the bank who loaned them money most likely did their homework....so borrowing for something stupid is the least likely outcome, because the bank is unlikely to approve such a loan,
|
|
|
Post by IntelliVent on Nov 4, 2019 17:38:43 GMT -5
There’s only one flaw in that logic. If you have a mortgage and you decide to move, you don’t have to pay off the mortgage....you simply sell the old house and move.
|
|
|
Post by mdl on Nov 4, 2019 19:23:41 GMT -5
There’s only one flaw in that logic. If you have a mortgage and you decide to move, you don’t have to pay off the mortgage....you simply sell the old house and move. The sale of the house should pay off the balance of the mortgage. The mortgage company has the property pledged as collateral. So, you can’t sell the house, pocket the funds and stiff the bank (mortgage company). I assume you know all that though... Now even if the debt is a mortgage loan....I don’t blame the GISA for perhaps being wary of it. Assuming the loan and the property would still entail risk for them. Even if they wanted to sell it and dispose of the property (and mortgage) there are no guarantees on how long it would take....so they would be paying on something they didn’t want or need for who knows how long. Plus, the GICAA folks might well have asked for something with regards to this that was unreasonable.....people do ask for unrealistic valuations on properties, etc. I am not defending the GICAA here. I know nothing of what they asked for or how reasonable/crazy it was. Just the thought that some bank would be dumb enough to give such a loan to a small league like the GICAA without having it be backed by collateral (a property of some kind the bank could forclose on) seems the most unlikely thing for a bank to do
|
|
|
Post by IntelliVent on Nov 5, 2019 15:36:37 GMT -5
There was 1 mod who gained control of the site and ruined it. That's why we left. Anything he didn't like, he capriciously deleted. Complaints did no good and in fact resulted in punitive action for complaining. So now you have the story straight. Yep I've seen this comment from several old venters about the mod on the old vent site, my real question is there anywhere still posted on the old vent site that can be linked on the GICAA debt so others can understand or is that information lost? None of us can even log in anymore. We all got banned by that dipstick Moderator. Further, the host site changed after those posts and PMs were added so I really doubt that they even exist anymore. They've gone to hell with Hillary's emails.
|
|
|
Post by wishbone on Nov 5, 2019 19:19:48 GMT -5
I only know that there was a significant debt owed by gicaa. I don’t know the exact amount but It was told to me to be around the $225-$250k range and that it had no physical collateral to back it up. No building or assets etc. I think it was an operating loan. I have no idea on the details but that was one of if not the main reason GISA walked away from the table. It was a bad debt
|
|
|
Post by mdl on Nov 5, 2019 21:33:36 GMT -5
I only know that there was a significant debt owed by gicaa. I don’t know the exact amount but It was told to me to be around the $225-$250k range and that it had no physical collateral to back it up. No building or assets etc. I think it was an operating loan. I have no idea on the details but that was one of if not the main reason GISA walked away from the table. It was a bad debt Well....it’s going to just be one of those things that we probably wish we had exact details on. You seem to be a reasonable person without a particular axe to grind on the GICAA, so I will take your word on the matter of why you heard GISA walked over it. I can’t imagine why any bank would make that kind of a loan to a entity like the GICAA.....who knows maybe the head of the GICAA took out a loan on his house, loaned the $ he got to the association and then contractually obligated the GICAA to pay him back. That would maybe be a way the GICAA could incur that kind of debt without being checked out by a bank. Something like that would be possible and a poison pill to merger talks.....so, being that “bad debt” is what it was reported to be (and having nothing from the GICAA to refute the claim) it will have to stand as you stated.....at least until something more definitive comes out.
|
|
|
Post by wishbone on Nov 6, 2019 8:14:35 GMT -5
I just meant bad debt in the eyes of the gisa. They apparently didn’t see the terms as a good deal. As I said, I really don’t know the exact details. I BELIEVE that both leagues were in a way, playing chicken with each other. Seeing if the other would blink. I don’t think either was very interested in the merger unless it was very one-sided. I also think things have changed now.
|
|
|
Post by mdl on Nov 6, 2019 8:36:33 GMT -5
I just meant bad debt in the eyes of the gisa. They apparently didn’t see the terms as a good deal. As I said, I really don’t know the exact details. I BELIEVE that both leagues were in a way, playing chicken with each other. Seeing if the other would blink. I don’t think either was very interested in the merger unless it was very one-sided. I also think things have changed now. Thanks for clarifying...I think I understood what you meant. I.e....bad debt = not something GISA wanted to be responsible for, uncolateralized, risky for them....not that you meant the GICAA was in default. Let us know if you hear any updates on talks.
|
|