I never said I didn’t like him. I actually have heard he’s a good guy.i have heard he’s a very generous and fair person from a few of my friends that are close with him. I’m only stating my opinion as it pertains to su. I’m in marketing and I will tell you flat out he’s very good at what he does. The issue is everyone on either side is hot on this. It doesn’t go away. If I was working for him I would say to donate to a collective and get your foot back in the door. If he did that he would own the fans and media. My guess is his team just pushes the narrative aw wants without stating the contrary.
Hey I appreciate that. Like I said I have no dog in the fight but all I saw was opinions of negativity and I just couldn't let all the opinions go stated as facts.
What are the special considerations? Not going through NIL channels?
Making what up? He has a team that runs his social media. He literally posts about them. No one who has a social media team is responding to every comment individually. Especially one who does so at the frequency that AW does.
Obviously, SU is a private university and can run things however they please, but they have to know they are alienating a portion of their STH's, who might not be named Lally, but have supported the basketball program for a long time. Hopefully, this doesn't backfire in their face.
Would someone move all this conversation to another board, and lock this.
Ignore it. We are actually having a nice conversation. What is the point of locking it. Ridiculous
You could almost make that same argument regarding any donor to Syracuse athletics as the results have been somewhat lackluster.
And how is the fact that AW craved some "attention " and some "recognition " for his donations, any different than other billionaires such as Phil Knight donating to Oregon, Mike Repole donating to St Johns or the Waltons or Tysons donating to Arkansas. None of them have been shy about what they donate, but those schools had no issue accepting their money.
Because they donated REAL money.
Just stop. We are way past that answer. Unless you can prove it stop
It’s been discussed. All of those individuals donate to the schools preferred collectives. Weitsman does not want to do it. That is the issue at hand here.
Think you misread or miscomprehended my post, not that it really matters.
I mean my comprehension does suck sometimes but that sentences was pretty short.
Yes. Thats how money works, especially in the donation space
And because as was already said, those big donors donated to the school, or the AD. They donated and the publicity is in the form of a name on the building. Knight has his name on several Oregon buildings. Ryan family has their name on several Northwestern buildings. Pickens has his name on several OK State buildings. Walton and Purdue the same.
That makes zero sense.
It’s pretty simple. Do you want to take the side of the guy who has donated very little or the guy who has donated a lot and continues to donate a lot. Money buys influence.
Well, my friend, Phil Knight and AW don't even belong in the same sentence. They may both be billionaires, but it is at that point where the comparison ends.
