U of Penn bylaws call for 15% of INTEREST from endowment goes to general fund.
which is enough to cover complete operations of school including expansion and tuition
I'm sure Cal is in the same boat

(11-22-2022 12:08 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  U of Penn bylaws call for 15% of INTEREST from endowment goes to general fund.
which is enough to cover complete operations of school including expansion and tuition
I'm sure Cal is in the same boat

If you took the time to check out the links provided, you might find the information you're looking for.

(11-22-2022 11:26 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ... Do you think there are any other entities out there that might want the naming rights? ...

The fact that they sold the naming rights for Bitcoin would be taken in some quarters as an indication that there weren't a lot of companies lining up for the naming rights.

One problem with selling naming rights to their stadium is that not a lot of people watch their games on TV.

(11-22-2022 01:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 11:26 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ... Do you think there are any other entities out there that might want the naming rights? ...

The fact that they sold the naming rights for Bitcoin would be taken in some quarters as an indication that there weren't a lot of companies lining up for the naming rights.

One problem with selling naming rights to their stadium is that not a lot of people watch their games on TV.

Or it's the more common "Bitcoiners go out of their way to put Bitcoin on everything and scream about how great it is" that led to that. Matt Brown, on this very thread, said it was immediately converted to cash

(11-22-2022 01:12 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 01:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 11:26 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ... Do you think there are any other entities out there that might want the naming rights? ...

The fact that they sold the naming rights for Bitcoin would be taken in some quarters as an indication that there weren't a lot of companies lining up for the naming rights.

One problem with selling naming rights to their stadium is that not a lot of people watch their games on TV.

Or it's the more common "Bitcoiners go out of their way to put Bitcoin on everything and scream about how great it is" that led to that.

That is the why for the reason that FTX overpaid for the naming rights. The point stands -- the fact that they had to turn to a Bitcoin exchange for the stadium naming rights would be taken by some as an indication that the queue of companies willing to pay serious amounts of money for the naming rights was not very long.

Quote: Matt Brown, on this very thread, said it was immediately converted to cash

"Well, yeah -- they were desperate, not stupid."

(11-22-2022 01:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 01:12 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 01:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 11:26 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ... Do you think there are any other entities out there that might want the naming rights? ...

The fact that they sold the naming rights for Bitcoin would be taken in some quarters as an indication that there weren't a lot of companies lining up for the naming rights.

One problem with selling naming rights to their stadium is that not a lot of people watch their games on TV.

Or it's the more common "Bitcoiners go out of their way to put Bitcoin on everything and scream about how great it is" that led to that.

That is the why for the reason that FTX overpaid for the naming rights. The point stands -- the fact that they had to turn to a Bitcoin exchange for the stadium naming rights would be taken by some as an indication that the queue of companies willing to pay serious amounts of money for the naming rights was not very long.

Quote: Matt Brown, on this very thread, said it was immediately converted to cash

Well, yeah -- they were desperate, not stupid.

This is just a bad point. Crypto firms also bought naming rights to the Lakers and Heat arenas...not because the Lakers and Heat were desperate but because crypto was paying the most. I suspect the same logic applies here.

(11-22-2022 02:01 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  This is just a bad point. Crypto firms also bought naming rights to the Lakers and Heat arenas...not because the Lakers and Heat were desperate but because crypto was paying the most. I suspect the same logic applies here.

AT first glance, it looked like Cal was a big step down when looking at the naming rights for the Heat by the same crypto conman, at 13% of what he agreed for the Heat naming rights, but that may just be the difference in market value, given that Oregon State sold its naming rights for a base $5m (to "as much as $12.5m" over 25 years).

(11-22-2022 02:01 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 01:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 01:12 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 01:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 11:26 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  ... Do you think there are any other entities out there that might want the naming rights? ...

The fact that they sold the naming rights for Bitcoin would be taken in some quarters as an indication that there weren't a lot of companies lining up for the naming rights.

One problem with selling naming rights to their stadium is that not a lot of people watch their games on TV.

Or it's the more common "Bitcoiners go out of their way to put Bitcoin on everything and scream about how great it is" that led to that.

That is the why for the reason that FTX overpaid for the naming rights. The point stands -- the fact that they had to turn to a Bitcoin exchange for the stadium naming rights would be taken by some as an indication that the queue of companies willing to pay serious amounts of money for the naming rights was not very long.

Quote: Matt Brown, on this very thread, said it was immediately converted to cash

Well, yeah -- they were desperate, not stupid.

This is just a bad point. Crypto firms also bought naming rights to the Lakers and Heat arenas...not because the Lakers and Heat were desperate but because crypto was paying the most. I suspect the same logic applies here.

This is exactly the point. Crypto is fueled by a bunch of people who throw "money" at things in hope that it results in more people buying in to increase their "wealth" - the investment strategy is "get the name everywhere so people think it's legit and buy in"

AKA they'll overbid vs. competition.

(11-22-2022 11:26 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So if the endowment is mostly out as an option, what other options might there be?

Is selling the stadium an option?

If so, who might buy it?

Do you think there are any other entities out there that might want the naming rights?

Any other creative options?

It just seems like they really dug a hole with the stadium, and they're talking about decades of repayment - if they can make those payments.

And I have a feeling that this could well affect realignment - more than just ucla, possibly the PAC and schools' choices.

"LEARFIELD’s Cal Bears Sports Properties, working in collaboration with Cal Athletics, has suspended the FTX naming rights sponsorship with Cal Athletics,” said Interim Associate Athletics Director Jonathan Okanes."

It sounds like Cal has farmed out licensing to Learfield, who presumably would be responsible for finding a replacement sponsor. Cal probably is unwilling to sell the naming rights to the stadium. How much are the naming rights to the field actually worth? FTX may have way overpaid.

(11-22-2022 02:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-22-2022 02:01 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  This is just a bad point. Crypto firms also bought naming rights to the Lakers and Heat arenas...not because the Lakers and Heat were desperate but because crypto was paying the most. I suspect the same logic applies here.

AT first glance, it looked like Cal was a big step down when looking at the naming rights for the Heat by the same crypto conman, at 13% of what he agreed for the Heat naming rights, but that may just be the difference in market value, given that Oregon State sold its naming rights for a base $5m (to "as much as $12.5m" over 25 years).

Lakers and Heat sold naming rights to their arenas, and the names will be mentioned every time a game is televised, or even a highlight video.

Cal only sold the name of their field. The stadium remains California Memorial Stadium. It is unlikely that Cal would change the name honoring WWI dead and wounded to that of a Singaporean crypto-currency business.

It will be Oregon etc. at California Memorial Stadium with a drone shot of the facade. The name of the field might get one mention.

The Oregon State stadium was named after a big-time donor to the program, and the wife of the donor was actually on the board of regents. Most people will not recognize that the name is the same as a company since it is not Reser's Fine Foods, Inc. Stadium or resers.com stadium.

The latest renovation of the stadium is funded by a $50 million contribution from an anonymous donor. Maybe there are strings attached so that it will be renamed NoName Stadium.

Cal needs to make their field one big billboard. Put in turf with some injury attorney screaming to give him a call and lets sue the world. Or maybe some EV company could put a image of their latest car on the field and lie about it not creating any carbon. The turf could become better known than the blue field.

(11-23-2022 08:36 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Cal needs to make their field one big billboard. Put in turf with some injury attorney screaming to give him a call and lets sue the world. Or maybe some EV company could put a image of their latest car on the field and lie about it not creating any carbon. The turf could become better known than the blue field.

They could sell yard markers.

Ponzi receives the punt at the thir...er...Tesla, he cuts right gets a block and is past the last defender, he's to the Pizza Hut, the Montana Visitors Bureau, Pink, the Geico, and into the Kaching.Con end zone for a touchdown for the Cal Bears Presented By Nike.

Well, we're here.

I've been wondering lately - if Cal doesn't get even a P5 invite, do they start considering shopping around for a buyer for their stadium/facilities?

Soldier Field in Chicago is run by the Park District. Perhaps Cal might have that option.

What else could be on the table? Hoping for alumni money to bail them out?

How much does Cal make from ticket sales for each game?

I have heard the average Big Ten school makes $6M per home game. Maybe that number was made up, Idk. Probably based on 60,000 attendendance and average ticket price of $100. Throw in $1M in expenses, that's more like $5M net, so my numbers don't exactly work out, but oh well, close enough to make an estimate for Cal's revenue.

So in Cal's case, the average attendance is more like 40,000. Let's say average ticket price is more like $50 . That's $2M a game before expenses. Probably like $1M after expenses.

So yeah, Cal ain't making much off of ticket sales compared to P2 schools. They are pretty much screwed without a big TV contract.

(11-22-2022 09:29 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 12:00 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-21-2022 11:03 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(11-20-2022 09:43 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So apparently they have between 4 and 5 hundred million in stadium debt (I'm not going to try to figure out the interest, etc).

The University took about half of it from the athletic dept.

Their payments are apparently just under $20M, and go up to 26M later.

No Pac deal would seem to cover that amount (and the rest of the dept's costs).

And the stadium branding deal would seem to have obviously fallen through.

So my question is this:

If Cal does not get a Big10 invite, do they have any creative options to reduce that debt besides just trying to make the payments?

And I mean besides trying to put the squeeze on UCLA : )

Look for Cal and the University of Colorado to drop football within a decade

I can understand Cal.

Why Colorado?

Berkeley is who they model themselves after. Long and short of it is that they have already de-emphasized football. They won’t join Big 12 if PAC 12 breaks up. They won’t keep football if Cal doesn’t.

I worked there for years. Berkeley is who they model themselves after.

This take didn't age well.

Does Cal hold the university commencement at the football stadium? The university will pay off the debt as it should

(11-20-2022 09:43 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  So apparently they have between 4 and 5 hundred million in stadium debt (I'm not going to try to figure out the interest, etc).

The University took about half of it from the athletic dept.

Their payments are apparently just under $20M, and go up to 26M later.

No Pac deal would seem to cover that amount (and the rest of the dept's costs).

And the stadium branding deal would seem to have obviously fallen through.

So my question is this:

If Cal does not get a Big10 invite, do they have any creative options to reduce that debt besides just trying to make the payments?

And I mean besides trying to put the squeeze on UCLA : )

My thought was just increase the Calimony so it's enough to cover the stadium each year. Cal has earned it, they were together with USCLA for decades.

(11-21-2022 09:36 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Three quick things:

1) Cal's FTX deal was paid in Crypto...and then immediately converted to dollars. It's unclear exactly how much money Cal is going to be out here, but at least Learfield isn't holding worthless pretend money tokens.

2) Cal is unable to just dip into the endowment funds *because of state law*, not just Cal policy. Restricted use funds cannot be used for any purposes outside of what they were originally created for. If a dude died and left his money to be used for say, law student scholarships, the school legally can't use that money for stadium debt. Endowments are not checking accounts.

3) that being said, if Cal wanted, their university operating budget is still plenty large enough that the school itself COULD handle the remaining balloon payments. They will face significant political and institutional pressure to NOT do that, but they could if they wanted.

What do you think of the push/pull here, considering the antipathy towards football in general in that Region of the country? Is it possible that Cal chooses to just de-emphasize football? Would they really continue to play until 2113 just to make payments on their stadium?

(08-06-2023 10:57 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  What do you think of the push/pull here, considering the antipathy towards football in general in that Region of the country? Is it possible that Cal chooses to just de-emphasize football? Would they really continue to play until 2113 just to make payments on their stadium?

I hope whoever is holding that debt got the State of CA to co-sign and didn't just take the signature of the UCal Regents. That debt is going bad by the minute right now..

One saving grace for CAL is they will get 3 to 10mil per year from UCLA for a few years.