Given that they play Ohio State next year, there's no ****ing way we'll be their "super bowl".
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Interesting comments from Ringo regarding the Miami (OH) game
- Thread starter Duff Man
- Start date
Given that they play Ohio State next year, there's no ****ing way we'll be their "super bowl".
Rraalph 3000
Well-Known Member
Officially Toledo as Mike Bohn replied to my email pleading for another home game.
I agree. Our obligation was with Miami of Ohio, not the MAC. This still pisses me off.
You know, fulfilling our obligation as part of the contract that the other team wants to back out of. Makes perfect sense to me!
If we lose to Toledo, I will stab someone.
The only thing I can think of here is that the MAC had to come up with the buyout money, and in order to do so, required CU to play a road game to claim it. CU was set to make a certain amount of money from playing the game in the first place, and the buyout money is like "found" cash. The MAC could have said "We'll pay all or a portion of the $750K buyout if you'll agree to come and play another of our teams".
This still annoys the bejessus out of me, because we were under no obligation to do anything other than play a game at Miami of Ohio. If Miami backs out, they are contractually obligated to pay a $750K fee. I think we could have (and should have) played hardball. Say "play the game or pay the $750K, those are your options".
On the other hand, had we done that, we might have forced Miami to abide by the conditions of the contract and then walked away without any payout.
This still annoys the bejessus out of me, because we were under no obligation to do anything other than play a game at Miami of Ohio. If Miami backs out, they are contractually obligated to pay a $750K fee. I think we could have (and should have) played hardball. Say "play the game or pay the $750K, those are your options".
On the other hand, had we done that, we might have forced Miami to abide by the conditions of the contract and then walked away without any payout.
I'm still pissed about this as well. CU didn't have an obligation to anyone except MOH and they wanted out. Should have pocketed the $750k (please tell me they got the $750k or I'll really lose it) and booked a home game vs. anyone. Would have been a HUGE revenue windfall in a time where belts are getting tightened across the board.
Rraalph 3000
Well-Known Member
Definately a joke of a reply from Bohn....if I catch any wind that we didn't pocket the $750,000 grand I won't even know what to say???
I guess a friday night national TV game was too much for Bohn to say no to, since that's pretty much all he ever talks about is "getting TV exposure etc. etc. etc."
I guess a friday night national TV game was too much for Bohn to say no to, since that's pretty much all he ever talks about is "getting TV exposure etc. etc. etc."
Since the Big 12 conference gives us several hundred grand as a bonus every time we are on national television, and national tv was unlikely to televise a home game against a FCS school, maybe that was what Bohn was thinking?
BlackNGold
Club Member
There is no payout or buyout money. CU has a game and it is on ESPN as a national so CU has the same cost and the same revenue....
Please say you're sh!tting me.
We just let a bunch of yay-hoos from the MAC dictate to us the terms and conditions that WE'RE going to accept from THEM after THEY backed out of a deal? Please, oh please tell me this is a joke.
As much as I would have liked to see them schedule another home game and pocket the 750k, I don't think that was an option.
Keep in mind CU had obligations under the contract as well. Even though Miami wanted to back out, there were provisions in the contract to which covered that scenario which CU has to live with.
If memory serves, the contract required Miami to find a suitable replacement game if they decided to back out to avoid paying the 750k. A road game, against an opponent from the same conference, in the same state, on ESPN seems to fullfill the requirement for a "suitable replacement".
Probably not what everyone wants to hear, but I suspect the delay was caused by the MAC trying to work out a deal with ESPN to televise the Toledo game instead. I'm sure the MAC did everything they could to avoid having to cough up the huge buyout to CU. I bet we got a fraction of that if any.
I suspect if CU had turned down the Toledo game for another home game, we wouldn't have gotten a dime of the buyout and probably wouldn't be on TV either.
Just my two cents.
Keep in mind CU had obligations under the contract as well. Even though Miami wanted to back out, there were provisions in the contract to which covered that scenario which CU has to live with.
If memory serves, the contract required Miami to find a suitable replacement game if they decided to back out to avoid paying the 750k. A road game, against an opponent from the same conference, in the same state, on ESPN seems to fullfill the requirement for a "suitable replacement".
Probably not what everyone wants to hear, but I suspect the delay was caused by the MAC trying to work out a deal with ESPN to televise the Toledo game instead. I'm sure the MAC did everything they could to avoid having to cough up the huge buyout to CU. I bet we got a fraction of that if any.
I suspect if CU had turned down the Toledo game for another home game, we wouldn't have gotten a dime of the buyout and probably wouldn't be on TV either.
Just my two cents.
But they still probably average more fans per game. :lol:
Ticket sales for home game > tv payouts. I believe the TV payouts are in the $300k range for nationally televised (ABC, ESPN) games.
Even if they cut the ticket price to $40 per seat for a home game vs. a nobody, that's $2 million for 50,000 seats.
Let's be real here, another FCS team would at absolute best generate 46,000 fans in the seats. Granted, that's still a larger payout but I also wonder what the net to CU is after all the expenses are associated with a game are.
I'm just curious if you have seen the contract or how you know that much about what it says. That is far more information than I've seen anywhere else on the subject and I'm curious about its validity.
If true, I agree with you. But it is contradictory with info I've heard elsewhere. Also, if that is true someone in the CUAD needs to be reminded that when negotiating with a MAC team, CU holds the cards and should dictate terms, not the other way around.
Yeah, probably 45-50k. So take off $200k and you're still at $1.8mm gross. There is no way CU has $1.5mm of gameday expenses or they'd never make any money. And don't leave concessions and parking revenues out, either.
My question was more out of curiosity than anything. I have no doubt that CU in most cases (it's probably everytime) makes more money at home than a road game.
Really their only significant gameday expense is labor and visiting team fees for OOC games. The facility is there, ready to use. They just need to get it ready for a game, have the staff there during the game, and then clean up after. Other than that, it's all gravy. And like I said, CU gets a cut on parking and concessions, too.
Home games are big moneymakers.
Anyone know how much it costs to use Invesco for the RMS and how the revenue is shared between CU and the Lammies?
55/45 revenue (and seat) split. I believe the fee is $400k.
The thing that gets me on that game is the fact that the schools pay the fee at all. Taxpayers funded that ****ing stadium. Why the two in-state schools have to pay Pat Bowlen $400k to use it for one day is beyond me. It is my understanding that part of the agreement to pay for the stadium includes so many free use days. But for some reason, that game doesn't qualify.
Did CU outsource concessions and parking or why do you say just a cut? It wouldn´t surprise me if they outsourced the concessions and got a flat fee plus a percentage of any revenue that exceeds amount X, but (and feel free to excuse me if I am wrong), most of the parking is on campus so I´d believe CU gets more than "just a cut" there.
Parking is not outsourced, but concessions are.
Two public schools, no less. But are they actually paying Pat Bowlen? I tried to find out a while ago who actually owns Invesco and all I could come up with was an organization called "Denver Metropolitan Football District" and i couldn´t really find out much more about them.
Bah, where's the fun in not speculating? It's what we do! See Jay Cutler thread(s) for further proof.:smile2:
I wonder if there are insurance implications. You'd think there must be, right?