(07-21-2015 12:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 04:41 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  I have stated on this board before that I thought GT was going to bring in 25-28M for 2014-15, and that came straight from GT public disclosure... However the AJC did an article stating that GT ACC Share for 2014-15 was only 23.8M....SO that leaves me to think that extra money that is not being spoke about is the Maryland settlement money!

Does anyone know how much each school would be getting?

GT's records did not show them getting upwards of $28M.

Nice try.

Nope it doesn't... What their records show is that they made 80.5M.... The report in AJC that states their ACC distr is 23.8.... and their Budget was 78M.... They only had 6 home games and 1 of those was Wofford and they played at UGA last year...Also their Basketball team stinks

There could be a number of reasons that they made 2.5M more than budgeted....

1. Russell kicked in more
2. Radio kicked in more
3. Local TV kicked in more
4. 2.5M is what the mbr schools receive from Maryland exit
5. Donor/Sponsorship
6. Ticket Sales from other sports Baseball/volleyball...??

I am just asking if anyone has heard... I can wait until the next tax return to find out, however it seem that the ACC is being hush on purpose which leads me to believe that it must be from the Maryland Exit if it is not from ACC Dist...

You left off the most obvious reason:

GT budgeted less than what the ACC was going to pay out to ensure they didn't go over budget.

If GT received $23.8M, that is what they received. They didn't receive $23.8M + $2.5M just because you say so. If that were the case, the AJC would've said they received $26.3M. Do you see how this works?

The ACC runs it's finances thusly:

1. They always underestimate revenue to the schools.
2. They almost always over distribute to the schools.

They do this because the ACC office is located in North Carolina and the influence of the North Carolina Local Government Finance Commission permeates the way the ACC actually runs it's business. That's why they use modified accrual, not accrual. It's the most conservative way of accounting.

This is not like accounting run to impress shareholders where values and revenues are overstated on a regular basis. If the ACC office tells you they are probably going to distribute $10 million, you can bet your life it will be at least $10.5 to $11 million. Under promise, over deliver. Then at the local school level, smart AD's do the same, under promise, and over deliver.

The amount of TV money and conference money received by the public schools in VA, and NC is a political problem in these states. It raises questions about how much the overall university under rights costs with passing those costs along to the general funds. I think Marge said FSU athletics paid their own way - probably not. Unless the general administration and general counsel is sending a bill for their time to the Athletic Department and unless campus police are sending a bill, the University is underwriting certain costs. If a sinking fund is not used to deal with athletic building depreciation, the overall University is carrying that cost until the athletic department raises funds to cure the dilapidation.

In NC, NC State comes closest to paying it's own way with the way the University finance folks assign costs. UNC-Ch is more generous to it's athletic side than NC State's, but whether it is NC State, UNC, UVa, VT, GT, FSU, or Clemson, most of the Universities are subsidizing certain aspects of the athletic program. As near as I can tell, only Duke makes enough off sports to actually cover ALL overhead associated with the athletes and their buildings. Syracuse and Louisville might as well and it seems rooted in the profits made in basketball versus the overall cost of administering basketball players.

Nevermind.... that extra 2.5M while under the GT athletic budget three weeks ago on their website is now on the facilities section of the budget.... Might have been an error on the website or accounting who knows.... All is well.... GT made 78M, spent 76M so they are 2.2M to the good... All is well...

So quick question does anyone know what the Maryland share will be or have their been any reports on how that will be disbursed???

I hope the Maryland money can be used to launch a cable network, rather than returning it to the schools.

(07-22-2015 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I hope the Maryland money can be used to launch a cable network, rather than returning it to the schools.

Since there have been no reports of disbursing the money amongst member schools, we must assume it's still in Greensboro. And if it's in Greensboro and it were being used to buy back rights and launch a network (whoops, I mean "channel"), then what is the hold up?

The ACC has to buy back the same rights the SEC did, except for less years. So that's not a reasonable excuse as to why it hasn't occurred.

The other common excuse is that the ACC doesn't want to extend its contract with ESPN another 10 years. OK, so pay more of the startup costs than the SEC did. Use the Maryland money for that. How much Maryland money is there? And how much money did/is the SEC spend(ing) on buy back/start up costs? Shirley ESPN wouldn't turn down free money from the ACC.

That Maryland money is either in the pockets of Swofford and his friends or it is being used to keep the current revenue gap from looking too bad.


It won't be put to good use....temporary cover at best......Swofford fraud at worst.

(07-23-2015 09:44 AM)nole Wrote:  That Maryland money is either in the pockets of Swofford and his friends or it is being used to keep the current revenue gap from looking too bad.


It won't be put to good use....temporary cover at best......Swofford fraud at worst.

I could see it being distributed next year to keep next years revenue gap from looking so bad.

I believe the UMD money is going into the network.

(07-23-2015 09:44 AM)nole Wrote:  That Maryland money is either in the pockets of Swofford and his friends or it is being used to keep the current revenue gap from looking too bad.


It won't be put to good use....temporary cover at best......Swofford fraud at worst.

Unless his friends are the presidents of the ACC schools, this statement is ridiculous. Im sure the Acc presidents have checks and balances in place to prevent this sort of fraud, which still makes this comment ridiculous.

(07-22-2015 09:10 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I hope the Maryland money can be used to launch a cable network, rather than returning it to the schools.

Since there have been no reports of disbursing the money amongst member schools, we must assume it's still in Greensboro. And if it's in Greensboro and it were being used to buy back rights and launch a network (whoops, I mean "channel"), then what is the hold up?

The ACC has to buy back the same rights the SEC did, except for less years. So that's not a reasonable excuse as to why it hasn't occurred.

The other common excuse is that the ACC doesn't want to extend its contract with ESPN another 10 years. OK, so pay more of the startup costs than the SEC did. Use the Maryland money for that. How much Maryland money is there? And how much money did/is the SEC spend(ing) on buy back/start up costs? Shirley ESPN wouldn't turn down free money from the ACC.

How long do you think it should take buy back a complicated set of sublet rights and how much should we pay for them?

Should we pay a premium such than an ACC network doesn't make a great deal of money until the buy back is defeased? What's ESPN's interest in that?

The "Maryland" money has been "in hand" for just a year. The ACC uses modified accrual and did not recognize the MD money as money until all the litigation was concluded. We have had just one year of Louisville in the conference and ND playing football games. Until everyone has a chance to digest those numbers, who in their right mind starts tossing money around?

If there were just one or two issues to work out the Office is going to obfuscate and lie about that until the documents are signed. It's how they work.

There is about $32 million in MD money - one full year's revenue, two-thirds of the prior year, and a couple million in a discrete savings fund that no one talks about. It's in chunks of about $18, $12, and $ 2 million.

I don't know what that is on a per school basis because I know Louisville is owed none of that, and I don't what ND's small share would be, moreover Syracuse and Pitt might not have a real claim if that money were to be partitioned. Then again they might, and then again the Conference may share equally. But the MD money is about $32 million against very small legal costs.

IMO, the money should be distributed to the ACC members that agreed to the exit fee. That would be ALL of us. If ND is subject to the ACC exit fee, then they deserve an equal share IMO. It is based on equal revenue, it should be distributed as equal revenue.
Just like the money Maryland is receiving for B1G travel. ALL of that money should be accounted as extra travel cost above what they would have spent remaining in the ACC.

(07-25-2015 06:04 PM)Dasville Wrote:  IMO, the money should be distributed to the ACC members that agreed to the exit fee. That would be ALL of us. If ND is subject to the ACC exit fee, then they deserve an equal share IMO. It is based on equal revenue, it should be distributed as equal revenue.
Just like the money Maryland is receiving for B1G travel. ALL of that money should be accounted as extra travel cost above what they would have spent remaining in the ACC.

1. Maryland's initial breech of trust to the league occurred before Louisville and ND joined.
2. The breech could not be publicly confirmed until November, but it had in fact occurred before that date.
3. The fact that FSU voted against that particular exit fee is immaterial to the fact that they are of equal standing. The ACC votes like a corporate board, a dissenting vote does not change anything if the motion passes.
4. ND can not be owed an "equal share" it has to be prorated to the level of their financial participation which is the value of basketball and 2.5 football games. Their share is about one fifth of a full share IIRC.
5. The disposition of that money is up to the subcommittee that makes such recommendations to the full board.
6. I don't know what the plan is for the money.

(07-25-2015 04:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 09:10 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I hope the Maryland money can be used to launch a cable network, rather than returning it to the schools.

Since there have been no reports of disbursing the money amongst member schools, we must assume it's still in Greensboro. And if it's in Greensboro and it were being used to buy back rights and launch a network (whoops, I mean "channel"), then what is the hold up?

The ACC has to buy back the same rights the SEC did, except for less years. So that's not a reasonable excuse as to why it hasn't occurred.

The other common excuse is that the ACC doesn't want to extend its contract with ESPN another 10 years. OK, so pay more of the startup costs than the SEC did. Use the Maryland money for that. How much Maryland money is there? And how much money did/is the SEC spend(ing) on buy back/start up costs? Shirley ESPN wouldn't turn down free money from the ACC.

How long do you think it should take buy back a complicated set of sublet rights and how much should we pay for them?

Should we pay a premium such than an ACC network doesn't make a great deal of money until the buy back is defeased? What's ESPN's interest in that?

The "Maryland" money has been "in hand" for just a year. The ACC uses modified accrual and did not recognize the MD money as money until all the litigation was concluded. We have had just one year of Louisville in the conference and ND playing football games. Until everyone has a chance to digest those numbers, who in their right mind starts tossing money around?

If there were just one or two issues to work out the Office is going to obfuscate and lie about that until the documents are signed. It's how they work.

There is about $32 million in MD money - one full year's revenue, two-thirds of the prior year, and a couple million in a discrete savings fund that no one talks about. It's in chunks of about $18, $12, and $ 2 million.

I don't know what that is on a per school basis because I know Louisville is owed none of that, and I don't what ND's small share would be, moreover Syracuse and Pitt might not have a real claim if that money were to be partitioned. Then again they might, and then again the Conference may share equally. But the MD money is about $32 million against very small legal costs.

Cuse and Pitt should get a share...they were committed to join a league with Maryland.

(07-25-2015 09:06 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cuse and Pitt should get a share...they were committed to join a league with Maryland.

I'm sure you'll both get a share.

(07-25-2015 09:06 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-25-2015 04:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 09:10 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 07:54 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I hope the Maryland money can be used to launch a cable network, rather than returning it to the schools.

Since there have been no reports of disbursing the money amongst member schools, we must assume it's still in Greensboro. And if it's in Greensboro and it were being used to buy back rights and launch a network (whoops, I mean "channel"), then what is the hold up?

The ACC has to buy back the same rights the SEC did, except for less years. So that's not a reasonable excuse as to why it hasn't occurred.

The other common excuse is that the ACC doesn't want to extend its contract with ESPN another 10 years. OK, so pay more of the startup costs than the SEC did. Use the Maryland money for that. How much Maryland money is there? And how much money did/is the SEC spend(ing) on buy back/start up costs? Shirley ESPN wouldn't turn down free money from the ACC.

How long do you think it should take buy back a complicated set of sublet rights and how much should we pay for them?

Should we pay a premium such than an ACC network doesn't make a great deal of money until the buy back is defeased? What's ESPN's interest in that?

The "Maryland" money has been "in hand" for just a year. The ACC uses modified accrual and did not recognize the MD money as money until all the litigation was concluded. We have had just one year of Louisville in the conference and ND playing football games. Until everyone has a chance to digest those numbers, who in their right mind starts tossing money around?

If there were just one or two issues to work out the Office is going to obfuscate and lie about that until the documents are signed. It's how they work.

There is about $32 million in MD money - one full year's revenue, two-thirds of the prior year, and a couple million in a discrete savings fund that no one talks about. It's in chunks of about $18, $12, and $ 2 million.

I don't know what that is on a per school basis because I know Louisville is owed none of that, and I don't what ND's small share would be, moreover Syracuse and Pitt might not have a real claim if that money were to be partitioned. Then again they might, and then again the Conference may share equally. But the MD money is about $32 million against very small legal costs.

Cuse and Pitt should get a share...they were committed to join a league with Maryland.

Agree.


That said it would be best served if a network were imminent to apply that money towards the overwhelming sums that will be required to buy back rights from A: a division of a company that will cease to exist with an ACC network designed to make the ACC the most money possible and B: a company that will be a direct competitor to an ACC network.


I don'r expect A. to be a factor. The ACC will likely forgo it's own compensation to ensure that Raycom gets a piece of the pie. It's the ACC way......screw over your member schools to make sure a NC company gets paid. Got to make sure Chad Swofford has a job afterall.

The length of time and cost to buy back rights has a blueprint called the SECN. Our resident ACC insider should already have known this though.

And UL, you do not deserve a single penny of UMD's exit fee. You can buy back your rights - if an ACCN ever happens - out of your own pockets. You were NEVER a part of an ACC that included UMD as a member.

(07-26-2015 11:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And UL, you do not deserve a single penny of UMD's exit fee. You can buy back your rights - if an ACCN ever happens - out of your own pockets. You were NEVER a part of an ACC that included UMD as a member.

I'm sure Tom Jurich is not giving two @$#% about getting any of Maryland's exit fee. Next complaint please!

Furthermore, Louisville wasn't even a part of the conference when the rights were sold. Did they retroactively get sold to the third party with the rest of the ACC when we joined last year?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-28-2015 06:39 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 11:52 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And UL, you do not deserve a single penny of UMD's exit fee. You can buy back your rights - if an ACCN ever happens - out of your own pockets. You were NEVER a part of an ACC that included UMD as a member.

I'm sure Tom Jurich is not giving two @$#% about getting any of Maryland's exit fee. Next complaint please!

Furthermore, Louisville wasn't even a part of the conference when the rights were sold. Did they retroactively get sold to the third party with the rest of the ACC when we joined last year?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Complaint?

Maybe read the thread. A UL fan said they deserved part of UMD's exit fee as well since they are a member of the ACC, even though they conveniently ignore the fact that UMD had to leave the ACC before UL could join.

Your dig was about buying back rights that Louisville didn't even give away.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App