Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 3h3 hours ago

For anyone to believe B1G is not ready for streaming...not ready for the future (BTNTOGO)...has their head so far up their ***

Good grief?

--------------------------------------------------

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 11m11 minutes ago

21st Century FOX have bundling up their content (FOX/FOX NEWS/FS1) and selling it to Skinny Bundles; EXAMPLE = YouTube.

BTN is included.

--------------------------------------------------

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 9m9 minutes ago

HULU bundle is owned by FOX & Disney. And of course also includes BTN in its new 2016 created Bundle.

--------------------------------------------------

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 7m7 minutes ago

BTN distributed Profit Sharing $ to its fully invested B1G schls for first time in 2016.

It's called profitable ownership.

--------------------------------------------------

Greg Flugaur‏ @flugempire 5m5 minutes ago

Those who want to focus on 1 year decrease in valuation number for BTN as canary in coal mine..

Thank God you are not my Finance ADV?

Zzzzzzzzzzz

Must have hit close to home. The numbers speak for themselves. And he misses the point. Hulu and Amazon will eventually own the rights and not have to purchase them from ESPN and FOX. When that happens local announcers and campus production will become a much cheaper and more enjoyable way to produce the event.

Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

(05-14-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

(05-14-2017 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but what is the difference between owning 49% of an entity while being entitled to 49% of the profits and a contractual entitlement to be paid 50% of the profit on an entity one does not technically own?

Differences in percentage aside, seems like the same thing to me...

Seems like the only relevant question as to how much one is paid is how profitable is the entity.

(05-14-2017 11:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='murrdcu' pid='14335037' dateline='1494776923']
Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

The SEC has nothing to lose with their concept. They let ESPN pay all the money to set up our SECN. They made their start up costs back the first two years, and now we split. Let the experts handle the broadcast issues. It was an excellent setup.

(05-14-2017 11:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but what is the difference between owning 49% of an entity while being entitled to 49% of the profits and a contractual entitlement to be paid 50% of the profit on an entity one does not technically own?

Differences in percentage aside, seems like the same thing to me...

Seems like the only relevant question as to how much one is paid is how profitable is the entity.

But it's not!!! The SECN distributed their money from 50% of the profits and afterward suffered a 1.66% decline in value due to lost subscriptions. The Big 10 paid out 32.4 million to prop up their payouts to be competitive with the SECN but they robbed the equity of the Big 10 Network to do it. Which means they gave the oldest 11 schools the money while snubbing Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. A share of the Big 10 Network was worth 113.5 million before the distribution and worth 81.5 million after it. The total value of the Network declined 39.2%. Why? Because that was banked money, not profit for the year. The network value declined because they drew more out than they put in. It's more like when your family shifts savings into the checking account. You aren't suddenly wealthier you've just rearranged your money. It's not more than you had (which would be profit). If the Big 10 had been as profitable as the SECN the value of their network would have only gone down about 1-2% after the payouts, not 39.2%.

It looks to me that if they keep this up the oldest members will have taken their investments back in 2 to 3 more years. Hello!

(05-14-2017 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but what is the difference between owning 49% of an entity while being entitled to 49% of the profits and a contractual entitlement to be paid 50% of the profit on an entity one does not technically own?

Differences in percentage aside, seems like the same thing to me...

Seems like the only relevant question as to how much one is paid is how profitable is the entity.

But it's not!!! The SECN distributed their money from 50% of the profits and afterward suffered a 1.66% decline in value due to lost subscriptions. The Big 10 paid out 32.4 million to prop up their payouts to be competitive with the SECN but they robbed the equity of the Big 10 Network to do it. Which means they gave the oldest 11 schools the money while snubbing Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. A share of the Big 10 Network was worth 113.5 million before the distribution and worth 81.5 million after it. The total value of the Network declined 39.2%. Why? Because that was banked money, not profit for the year. The network value declined because they drew more out than they put in. It's more like when your family shifts savings into the checking account. You aren't suddenly wealthier you've just rearranged your money. It's not more than you had (which would be profit). If the Big 10 had been as profitable as the SECN the value of their network would have only gone down about 1-2% after the payouts, not 39.2%.

It looks to me that if they keep this up the oldest members will have taken their investments back in 2 to 3 more years. Hello!

So the B1G is about to fail and they are blaming Delany's absurd bonus for it. I'll buy that

(05-14-2017 11:41 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but what is the difference between owning 49% of an entity while being entitled to 49% of the profits and a contractual entitlement to be paid 50% of the profit on an entity one does not technically own?

Differences in percentage aside, seems like the same thing to me...

Seems like the only relevant question as to how much one is paid is how profitable is the entity.

But it's not!!! The SECN distributed their money from 50% of the profits and afterward suffered a 1.66% decline in value due to lost subscriptions. The Big 10 paid out 32.4 million to prop up their payouts to be competitive with the SECN but they robbed the equity of the Big 10 Network to do it. Which means they gave the oldest 11 schools the money while snubbing Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. A share of the Big 10 Network was worth 113.5 million before the distribution and worth 81.5 million after it. The total value of the Network declined 39.2%. Why? Because that was banked money, not profit for the year. The network value declined because they drew more out than they put in. It's more like when your family shifts savings into the checking account. You aren't suddenly wealthier you've just rearranged your money. It's not more than you had (which would be profit). If the Big 10 had been as profitable as the SECN the value of their network would have only gone down about 1-2% after the payouts, not 39.2%.

It looks to me that if they keep this up the oldest members will have taken their investments back in 2 to 3 more years. Hello!

So the B1G is about to fail and they are blaming Delany's absurd bonus for it. I'll buy that

They aren't failing, they are robbing equity to keep pace with the SECN. I think it is short term for one of possibly several reasons.
1. Keep up the appearance of being an equally viable option to the SEC especially since two big fish are still in the pond.
2. The Old line Big 10 schools see the handwriting on the wall for the cable model and are divesting from equity in the Big 10 Network to keep from losing it later.
3. They are borrowing from future profits on the contract that goes in force next year to try to keep pace this year.

Any one or any combination of those three, or all three are likely to be true.

And Murrdcu, you can shift numbers around but you can't just manufacture them. The accounting side of it is real.

(05-14-2017 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but what is the difference between owning 49% of an entity while being entitled to 49% of the profits and a contractual entitlement to be paid 50% of the profit on an entity one does not technically own?

Differences in percentage aside, seems like the same thing to me...

Seems like the only relevant question as to how much one is paid is how profitable is the entity.

But it's not!!! The SECN distributed their money from 50% of the profits and afterward suffered a 1.66% decline in value due to lost subscriptions. The Big 10 paid out 32.4 million to prop up their payouts to be competitive with the SECN but they robbed the equity of the Big 10 Network to do it. Which means they gave the oldest 11 schools the money while snubbing Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. A share of the Big 10 Network was worth 113.5 million before the distribution and worth 81.5 million after it. The total value of the Network declined 39.2%. Why? Because that was banked money, not profit for the year. The network value declined because they drew more out than they put in. It's more like when your family shifts savings into the checking account. You aren't suddenly wealthier you've just rearranged your money. It's not more than you had (which would be profit). If the Big 10 had been as profitable as the SECN the value of their network would have only gone down about 1-2% after the payouts, not 39.2%.

It looks to me that if they keep this up the oldest members will have taken their investments back in 2 to 3 more years. Hello!

I see what you're getting at now.

Earlier, I was just postulating that ownership didn't give the B1G any advantage because the SEC was entitled to the same percentage of profit whether they owned a stake in the entity or not, but you're actually saying the B1G withdrew cash essentially and devalued their own entity? Interesting.

(05-14-2017 12:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Look, B1G is making money and so are others. Will they be the biggest going forward? Maybe or maybe not but they'll be near the top.

Everyone is posturing for OU and UT. OU is the realist option while UT would be both a great addition and a terrible partner to work with.

I find it funny that OU is now, supposedly, wanted by the B1G in 2024 but could have been had in 2011 and 2010. Seems very fishy to pass on blue blood talent for eastern markets you could grab at almost any time.

We'll see in due time

My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but what is the difference between owning 49% of an entity while being entitled to 49% of the profits and a contractual entitlement to be paid 50% of the profit on an entity one does not technically own?

Differences in percentage aside, seems like the same thing to me...

Seems like the only relevant question as to how much one is paid is how profitable is the entity.

But it's not!!! The SECN distributed their money from 50% of the profits and afterward suffered a 1.66% decline in value due to lost subscriptions. The Big 10 paid out 32.4 million to prop up their payouts to be competitive with the SECN but they robbed the equity of the Big 10 Network to do it. Which means they gave the oldest 11 schools the money while snubbing Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. A share of the Big 10 Network was worth 113.5 million before the distribution and worth 81.5 million after it. The total value of the Network declined 39.2%. Why? Because that was banked money, not profit for the year. The network value declined because they drew more out than they put in. It's more like when your family shifts savings into the checking account. You aren't suddenly wealthier you've just rearranged your money. It's not more than you had (which would be profit). If the Big 10 had been as profitable as the SECN the value of their network would have only gone down about 1-2% after the payouts, not 39.2%.

It looks to me that if they keep this up the oldest members will have taken their investments back in 2 to 3 more years. Hello!

I see what you're getting at now.

Earlier, I was just postulating that ownership didn't give the B1G any advantage because the SEC was entitled to the same percentage of profit whether they owned a stake in the entity or not, but you're actually saying the B1G withdrew cash essentially and devalued their own entity? Interesting.

So they are selling high, but who was the buyer?

(05-14-2017 01:12 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  My point was vulnerability. They are more vulnerable than we are. Look when cord cutting hit the SECN lost 1.66% of its profits from its subscriber base. The Big 10 lost 39.2% I'm not saying the Big 10 isn't making money. I'm saying they stand to lose more.

And as to OU the Big 10 passed on the them for the same reason we did in 2010-1. They insisted that OSU be taken. The Big 10 passed, we passed and then the PAC passed.

And as far as Fluggy boy is concerned if it was a profit sharing distribution it would have been 32 million per school. That didn't show up in gross revenue reports? And that much money would have been trumpeted to the stars. They might have distributed 2 to 3 million per school maybe. It's just a cover story and an implausible one at that.

Hey wait a minute! They did distribute 32.4 million to each of their oldest 11 members so Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers didn't get a share. The reason they did was that that money kept the distributions near the record distributions that the SEC paid out. So the money was included in their gross revenue figures. And we still out earned them by 14 million a school on average.

You can google the like by searching for 2016 Big 10 Profit Sharing Distributions.

Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but what is the difference between owning 49% of an entity while being entitled to 49% of the profits and a contractual entitlement to be paid 50% of the profit on an entity one does not technically own?

Differences in percentage aside, seems like the same thing to me...

Seems like the only relevant question as to how much one is paid is how profitable is the entity.

But it's not!!! The SECN distributed their money from 50% of the profits and afterward suffered a 1.66% decline in value due to lost subscriptions. The Big 10 paid out 32.4 million to prop up their payouts to be competitive with the SECN but they robbed the equity of the Big 10 Network to do it. Which means they gave the oldest 11 schools the money while snubbing Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. A share of the Big 10 Network was worth 113.5 million before the distribution and worth 81.5 million after it. The total value of the Network declined 39.2%. Why? Because that was banked money, not profit for the year. The network value declined because they drew more out than they put in. It's more like when your family shifts savings into the checking account. You aren't suddenly wealthier you've just rearranged your money. It's not more than you had (which would be profit). If the Big 10 had been as profitable as the SECN the value of their network would have only gone down about 1-2% after the payouts, not 39.2%.

It looks to me that if they keep this up the oldest members will have taken their investments back in 2 to 3 more years. Hello!

I see what you're getting at now.

Earlier, I was just postulating that ownership didn't give the B1G any advantage because the SEC was entitled to the same percentage of profit whether they owned a stake in the entity or not, but you're actually saying the B1G withdrew cash essentially and devalued their own entity? Interesting.

So they are selling high, but who was the buyer?

They didn't sell. They withdrew more for the oldest 11 than they received in profits Murrdcu. That's the story here. The Old Big 10 schools are divesting. Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are paying into a system they will never fully collect from if this kind of withdrawal happens again over the next two years.

What it tells me is that the older schools know the model is failed and this "profit sharing" withdrawal is an excuse to cover divestiture. It's relevant because if I'm Oklahoma and Kansas I would stay the heck away from that situation. Who wants to take 1/2 payments for rights for 5 years to inherit the wind? Both would be 100 million to the good over 5 years if they were in the SEC vs the Big 10 by this measure.

(05-14-2017 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 01:12 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but what is the difference between owning 49% of an entity while being entitled to 49% of the profits and a contractual entitlement to be paid 50% of the profit on an entity one does not technically own?

Differences in percentage aside, seems like the same thing to me...

Seems like the only relevant question as to how much one is paid is how profitable is the entity.

But it's not!!! The SECN distributed their money from 50% of the profits and afterward suffered a 1.66% decline in value due to lost subscriptions. The Big 10 paid out 32.4 million to prop up their payouts to be competitive with the SECN but they robbed the equity of the Big 10 Network to do it. Which means they gave the oldest 11 schools the money while snubbing Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. A share of the Big 10 Network was worth 113.5 million before the distribution and worth 81.5 million after it. The total value of the Network declined 39.2%. Why? Because that was banked money, not profit for the year. The network value declined because they drew more out than they put in. It's more like when your family shifts savings into the checking account. You aren't suddenly wealthier you've just rearranged your money. It's not more than you had (which would be profit). If the Big 10 had been as profitable as the SECN the value of their network would have only gone down about 1-2% after the payouts, not 39.2%.

It looks to me that if they keep this up the oldest members will have taken their investments back in 2 to 3 more years. Hello!

I see what you're getting at now.

Earlier, I was just postulating that ownership didn't give the B1G any advantage because the SEC was entitled to the same percentage of profit whether they owned a stake in the entity or not, but you're actually saying the B1G withdrew cash essentially and devalued their own entity? Interesting.

So they are selling high, but who was the buyer?

They didn't sell. They withdrew more for the oldest 11 than they received in profits Murrdcu. That's the story here. The Old Big 10 schools are divesting. Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are paying into a system they will never fully collect from if this kind of withdrawal happens again over the next two years.

What it tells me is that the older schools know the model is failed and this "profit sharing" withdrawal is an excuse to cover divestiture. It's relevant because if I'm Oklahoma and Kansas I would stay the heck away from that situation. Who wants to take 1/2 payments for rights for 5 years to inherit the wind? Both would be 100 million to the good over 5 years if they were in the SEC vs the Big 10 by this measure.

The whole 1/2 profit sharing for the new schools is disgusting on it's face. More B1G elitism showing itself. So happy Missouri missed out on this mess.

(05-14-2017 02:59 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 01:12 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  But it's not!!! The SECN distributed their money from 50% of the profits and afterward suffered a 1.66% decline in value due to lost subscriptions. The Big 10 paid out 32.4 million to prop up their payouts to be competitive with the SECN but they robbed the equity of the Big 10 Network to do it. Which means they gave the oldest 11 schools the money while snubbing Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. A share of the Big 10 Network was worth 113.5 million before the distribution and worth 81.5 million after it. The total value of the Network declined 39.2%. Why? Because that was banked money, not profit for the year. The network value declined because they drew more out than they put in. It's more like when your family shifts savings into the checking account. You aren't suddenly wealthier you've just rearranged your money. It's not more than you had (which would be profit). If the Big 10 had been as profitable as the SECN the value of their network would have only gone down about 1-2% after the payouts, not 39.2%.

It looks to me that if they keep this up the oldest members will have taken their investments back in 2 to 3 more years. Hello!

I see what you're getting at now.

Earlier, I was just postulating that ownership didn't give the B1G any advantage because the SEC was entitled to the same percentage of profit whether they owned a stake in the entity or not, but you're actually saying the B1G withdrew cash essentially and devalued their own entity? Interesting.

So they are selling high, but who was the buyer?

They didn't sell. They withdrew more for the oldest 11 than they received in profits Murrdcu. That's the story here. The Old Big 10 schools are divesting. Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are paying into a system they will never fully collect from if this kind of withdrawal happens again over the next two years.

What it tells me is that the older schools know the model is failed and this "profit sharing" withdrawal is an excuse to cover divestiture. It's relevant because if I'm Oklahoma and Kansas I would stay the heck away from that situation. Who wants to take 1/2 payments for rights for 5 years to inherit the wind? Both would be 100 million to the good over 5 years if they were in the SEC vs the Big 10 by this measure.

The whole 1/2 profit sharing for the new schools is disgusting on it's face. More B1G elitism showing itself. So happy Missouri missed out on this mess.