FSU announces $65 million stand-alone football facility

[TheDouglas78]

Says the Donkey who thinks UF makes 140 million.

Revenues are what we make... so they did make 142,547,000 in total revenue... so from an accounting standpoint, he is 100% correct.

 

[jhbyrd]

Revenues are what we make... so they did make 142,547,000 in total revenue... so from an accounting standpoint, he is 100% correct.

They did not MAKE 142 milllion in profit. That is the bottom line.

This thread is about facility additions and we only got around 8 million in major gifts last season (2017). You pay for new facilities with profits , campaign contributions and borrowing.

 

[78]

What you make minus what you spend equals what you KEEP. There's your word, keep.

 

[TheDouglas78]

They did not MAKE 142 milllion in profit. That is the bottom line.

This is about facility additions and we only got around 8 million in major gifts last season. You pay for new facilities with profits , campaign contribtions and borrowing.

Brydman you are looking for an argument before looking at the facts...

Revenues are what you make
Expenses are what are taken out (COGs, Overhead, etc...)
Net is what you keep.... your net could be a profit or a lose...

So Donkey is 100% accurate in saying we make 142 million,

Just like saying we took at net loss for 2016-2017 of $4.079 million.

Our final net position was 153,372 (in thousands).

 

[jhbyrd]

Brydman you are looking for an argument before looking at the facts...

Revenues are what you make
Expenses are what are taken out (COGs, Overhead, etc...)
Net is what you keep.... your net could be a profit or a lose...

So Donkey is 100% accurate in saying we make 142 million,

Just like saying our we took at net loss for 2016-2017 of $4.079 million.

Our final net position was 153,372 (in thousands).

The negative net position in 2017 shows that there is not 140 million flowing in annually for facility spending as Donkey implies. It is much tighter after expenses than you two imply.

From a practical point of view it is what you make AFTER expenses that counts. If a salesman gets 200,000 in commissions but pays 150,000 in expenses then for all intents and purposes he really makes 50,000.

 

[TheDouglas78]

The negative net position in 2017 shows that there is not 142 million flowing in for facility spending as Donkey implies. It is much tighter after expenses than you two imply.

I'm glad you aren't working in the financial sector. Because you truly don't understand how to read these statements. Our financial position is excellent. The indicators is very positive with cash to spend.

Example, Cash Flow:
Ended 2015 (2015-2016) with $1.330 (million) cash flow position
Ended 2016 (2016-2017) with a $5.622(million) cash flow position

 

[78]

When Jas gets his mind on white pussy, it's as if he's wearing blinders.

 

[Sec14Gator]

The negative net position in 2017 shows that there is not 140 million flowing in annually for facility spending as Donkey implies. It is much tighter after expenses than you two imply.

From a practical point of view it is what you make AFTER expenses that counts.

 

[NVGator]

BTW... you don’t pay for facilities with shear profit, you have an agreed upon capital expense that is budgeted over the next 10, 20, 30 years on you balance sheet.

This guy knows nothing about this topic. I’m not even sure why we are all bothering.

 

[jhbyrd]

I'm glad you aren't working in the financial sector. Because you truly don't understand how to read these statements. Our financial position is excellent. The indicators is very positive with cash to spend.

Example, Cash Flow:
Ended 2015 (2015-2016) with $1.330 (million) cash flow position
Ended 2016 (2016-2017) with a $5.622(million) cash flow position

Thanks to Foley we are in an excellent financial position. Not overloaded on debt which helps net cash flow when you hit a bump in the road.

I am glad that you and donkey are not at UF because UF would be up to its ears in debt service which reduces the net cash flow.

 

[78]

BTW... you don’t pay for facilities with shear profit, you have an agreed upon capital expense that is budgeted over the next 10, 20, 30 years on you balance sheet.

This guy knows nothing about this topic. I’m not even sure why we are all bothering.

Hence why the entire deal hinged on approval of a 50m bond.

 

[jhbyrd]

BTW... you don’t pay for facilities with shear profit, you have an agreed upon capital expense that is budgeted over the next 10, 20, 30 years on you balance sheet.

No duh. I already said it was more than profit. To take what I said further , UF's capital projects are funded by:
34% private donations
20% bonds
46% operating revenue

So Donkey claiming we should not give to UF facilities cuts out 34% of the facility funding.

 

[Tay Bang]

 

[TheDouglas78]

Thanks to Foley we are in an excellent financial position. Not overloaded on debt which helps net cash flow when you hit a bump in the road.

I am glad that you and donkey are not at UF because UF would be up to its ears in debt which reduces the net cash flow.

No UF wouldn't be which is the point.... you know so little about the subject... You expense a cost like this over a period of time (see NV post above). You are so short sighted in your defense of Foley that you missed the over arching point. The UAA is a business, that business has lost massive opportunity due to it's failure to leverage it's own position. The opportunity cost that Foley and his tightening of the purse strings at the wrong time has cost UAA and UF by extension in revenue.

The argument isn't whether we had the position to do so, the argument is why we waited so long to do so. We are behind and it's Foley's and the UAA by extension fault for being behind. Which is why the revenues are also below both the market and what was expected even 5 years ago in the UAA projected plan.

 

[Tay Bang]

This thread stays open, because when byrd gets locked in, he stays in one thread like this one. This thread is keeping him out of the others.

Truer words were never spoken...

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Which is why the revenues are also below both the market and what was expected even 5 years ago in the UAA projected plan.

Exactly.

The cost of hiring shytty coaches is flat revenue DESPITE the massive increase in ESPN money during that period.

Saving money costs us tens of millions every year.

 

[jhbyrd]

No UF wouldn't be which is the point.... you know so little about the subject... You expense a cost like this over a period of time (see NV post above). You are so short sighted in your defense of Foley that you missed the over arching point. The UAA is a business, that business has lost massive opportunity due to it's failure to leverage it's own position. The opportunity cost that Foley and his tightening of the purse strings at the wrong time has cost UAA and UF by extension in revenue.

The argument isn't whether we had the position to do so, the argument is why we waited so long to do so. We are behind and it's Foley's and the UAA by extension fault for being behind. Which is why the revenues are also below both the market and what was expected even 5 years ago in the UAA projected plan.

Actually the question is how much Foley was allowed to borrow and his limit (which he did not set) was 100 million. He had to fund raise over that. I guess with the 50 million we are borrowing to build the current 130 million dollar campaign that the limit is now raised to around 150 million.


Over leveraged businesses that you like go out of business all of the time when they make a mistake. Because we are not overleveraged our 2 last bad football coach decisions were easily handled.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Actually the question is how much Foley was allowed to borrow and his limit (which he did not set) was 100 million. He had to fund raise over that. I guess with the 50 million we are borrowing to build the current 130 million dollar campaign that the limit is now raised to around 150 million.

Byrdman, this is the issue... if Foley was truly a great AD and businessman he would have proven that point of what these things were important and using proper business logic couldhave proven his case. The people who are in the UAA know good investments. It's Foley's job to make a case for those investments (now it's Strickland's job). Foley failed in making a case for those investments. Since 2012 and the expansion of the SEC and the contract with the SEC Network every SEC team has had an influx of revenue. Some teams have obviously taken advantage of these influx, and make operation revenue out of this influx. UAA has failed to capitalize on this, which has caused their to be little shift in that revenue position.

 

[jhbyrd]

Byrdman, this is the issue... if Foley was truly a great AD and businessman he would have proven that point of what these things were important and using proper business logic couldhave proven his case. The people who are in the UAA know good investments. It's Foley's job to make a case for those investments (now it's Strickland's job). Foley failed in making a case for those investments. Since 2012 and the expansion of the SEC and the contract with the SEC Network every SEC team has had an influx of revenue. Some teams have obviously taken advantage of these influx, and make operation revenue out of this influx. UAA has failed to capitalize on this, which has caused their to be little shift in that revenue position.

And the ones who over leveraged with that temporary ESPN revenue spurt may regret it later as ESPN is running into problems and that revenue stream may go away but the over leveraged teams ( who assumed that revenue would continue like you do) still have a high debt service. Add to that the recently added non deductibility of seat donations and you have another potential revenue loss. (but the high debt service remains). Add to that a normal recession and an over leveraged business has another revenue problem (but the debt service keeps coming).

Foley made terrible choices on his last two head football coaches so he made 2 major mistakes. Because UF was prudently run and not over leveraged UF still was able to give money to UF during those mistake years and still afford Mac's and Muschamp's buyouts.

 

[TheDouglas78]

And the ones who over leveraged with that temporary ESPN revenue spurt may regret it later as ESPN is running into problems and that revenue stream may go away but the over leveraged teams ( who assumed that revenue would continue like you do) still have a high debt service. Add to that the recently added non deductibility of seat donations and you have another potential revenue loss. (but the debt service remains).

You just displayed the type of thinking that has left us in the backburner. We were already in a positive cash position and revenue position before 2012. Then add the ESPN deal (SEC Network), added revenue from SEC contract (two added teams), and the added revenue from other avenues due to those changes. What would have been the risk analysis of the contract and currently is with a guaranteed contract with ESPN over the life of the deal? Do you think Disney is going to go default on it? It's all about risk/reward and over the lifetime of an expense asset of the caliber we are discussing, the UAA position would have been more than sturdy if those things you assume would have happen, happened.