Cougarguard investigative reporting - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 02-09-2015, 08:12 PM

[Retracted for now]

I consider this source to be reliable.

What does this mean?

BYU can do anything they want with the funds that are given to them. You can specify your intention but at the end of the day BYU does what it wants to with the money to serve the interests of BYU. I don't know that I can really disagree with this decision, after all, I'm more of a BYU sports fan than a BYU fan. And it was not revealed to me if the donor ever found out about this, or whether the donor cared. I do know the name of the donor as well. He's a Mormon/Utah household name.

Does revealing this serve any useful purpose? Maybe. It would be nice if we could have a culture that could debate such things and think about it. What do sports mean for BYU? What does FARMS means for BYU? How should donations be handled? Should we have more rigorous earmarks?

All things that reasonable people might disagree about.

ChinoCoug · 02-09-2015, 09:18 PM

That's egregious, man. And I donate to BYU every year.

MikeWaters · 02-10-2015, 01:10 PM

So I did a little reading last night, and the donor that my source referred to was publicly cited by BYU as having contributed to the indoor practice facility. So at the very least it is almost assured that the donor was aware that he/she donated to the practice facility. And also implied is that the donor agreed with donating to the facility. And may have agreed with diversion of previously given moneys to the facility.

One can imagine in that case that the grievance would be from the organization that was expecting a windfall and had it pulled away.

I still believe in the credibility of the source, and thus I believe funds were diverted. But I want to do some more digging on this.

BlueK · 02-10-2015, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So I did a little reading last night, and the donor that my source referred to was publicly cited by BYU as having contributed to the indoor practice facility. So at the very least it is almost assured that the donor was aware that he/she donated to the practice facility. And also implied is that the donor agreed with donating to the facility. And may have agreed with diversion of previously given moneys to the facility.

One can imagine in that case that the grievance would be from the organization that was expecting a windfall and had it pulled away.

I still believe in the credibility of the source, and thus I believe funds were diverted. But I want to do some more digging on this.

I wouldn't think it would be too smart for BYU to move the funds without consulting with the big donor. Chances are he was also a booster of BYU sports and the administration knew it, so that's why they approached him. Speculation of course, but BYU isn't dumb when it comes to dealing with stuff like this.

MikeWaters · 02-10-2015, 10:02 PM

As I suggested above, the aggrieved in this case was likely FARMS. Who resented the changing of the earmark.

02-09-2015, 08:12 PM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Cougarguard investigative reporting [Retracted for now] I consider this source to be reliable. What does this mean? BYU can do anything they want with the funds that are given to them. You can specify your intention but at the end of the day BYU does what it wants to with the money to serve the interests of BYU. I don't know that I can really disagree with this decision, after all, I'm more of a BYU sports fan than a BYU fan. And it was not revealed to me if the donor ever found out about this, or whether the donor cared. I do know the name of the donor as well. He's a Mormon/Utah household name. Does revealing this serve any useful purpose? Maybe. It would be nice if we could have a culture that could debate such things and think about it. What do sports mean for BYU? What does FARMS means for BYU? How should donations be handled? Should we have more rigorous earmarks? All things that reasonable people might disagree about. Last edited by MikeWaters; 02-10-2015 at 01:08 PM.

02-09-2015, 09:18 PM	#2
ChinoCoug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: NOVA Posts: 3,005	That's egregious, man. And I donate to BYU every year.

02-10-2015, 01:10 PM	#3
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	So I did a little reading last night, and the donor that my source referred to was publicly cited by BYU as having contributed to the indoor practice facility. So at the very least it is almost assured that the donor was aware that he/she donated to the practice facility. And also implied is that the donor agreed with donating to the facility. And may have agreed with diversion of previously given moneys to the facility. One can imagine in that case that the grievance would be from the organization that was expecting a windfall and had it pulled away. I still believe in the credibility of the source, and thus I believe funds were diverted. But I want to do some more digging on this.

02-10-2015, 10:02 PM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	As I suggested above, the aggrieved in this case was likely FARMS. Who resented the changing of the earmark.