Thanks. Do these contracts state that each university will receive X amount- minus start-up fees and annual operating expenses? Plus whatever costs go above and beyond?
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!
Pac 12 network / direct tv (PACN now on fuboTV streaming)
- Thread starter absinthe
- Start date
Also, the initial figures per school 2 years ago must have been based upon projected carriage contracts and ad revenue, not actual. Any idea how we're operating compared to forecast?
Deleted member 807
Guest
Lemme ask this another way.
Is the P12 network upholding the terms of the contract?
I dont know because only small parts were entered into evidence.
However their tax return led to these two articles:
The Pac-12 reported $334 million in total revenue for a fiscal year ending June 30, 2013, the first that reflects the conference's 12-year, $3 billion TV rights deals with ESPN and Fox; the debut of the wholly conference-owned Pac-12 Networks; and operations of the conference's nascent marketing and media arm, Pac-12 Enterprises.
That total represents a $158.1 million increase in revenue over what the conference reported for the 2011-12 fiscal year and a more than tripling of the $111.8 million that the Pac-12 reported for 2010-11.
The Big Ten recently reported $318.4 million in total revenue for a fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. The SEC reported $314.5 million reported for a fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, 2013.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, the nation's top-paid conference CEO, saw his pay increase to just over $3.3 million for the 2012 calendar year, the new return shows. He was reported with $3.1 million in 2011. (IRS rules require an individual's compensation to be reported based on a calendar year; an organization's revenue and expense data are reported based on a fiscal year.)
In addition, with the start-up of the network and other businesses, the Pac-12 reported three other executives with total compensation, including bonuses, of at least $790,000 -- former Pac-12 Networks president Gary Stevenson (more than $1.3 million, including $320,000 in severance pay), current Pac-12 Networks president Lydia Murphy-Stephans ($793,000) and chief revenue officer William Cella ($790,000). Conference deputy commissioner Kevin Weiberg was reported with more than $570,000.
Scott's base compensation was reported at just over $2.2 million on the new return, which also showed him with $900,000 in bonus compensation. Tax records from other conferences covering calendar 2012 compensation showed Big Ten commissoner Jim Delany with $1.255 million in base pay and the SEC's Mike Slive with $1.173 million. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby's base pay for his first 6½ months on the job was reported at $970,000 — an amount that, based on his monthly pay, projects to an annual amount of about $1.8 million.
Last year's Pac-12 return placed Scott's base pay for 2011 at $1.575 million and showed him with nearly $1.4 million in bonuses.
Pac-12 spokesman Erik Hardenbergh said Scott's pay is determined by the Pac-12 schools' CEO's, and that his bonuses are "performance-based and at the discretion of the the executive committee" of the CEO group -- a three-member panel that changes annually.
The new return shows that Scott continues to have the benefit of a nearly $1.9 million loan from the conference. The balance reported due on the loan -- $1,861,842 – is the same as the original principal amount, the return says. The loan was first reported on the tax records the conference filed in May 2011, which covered a fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.
The Pac-12's explosive revenue jump is due almost entirely to its increase in television revenue. The conference reported $252.7 million in television revenue during fiscal 2012-13. It reported $81.9 million as coming from the Pac-12 Networks.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...conference-tax-return-revenue-record/9497233/
Here is where you two will race past the numbers and focus the costs part.
The Pac-12 distributed only 68 percent of its revenue to members in fiscal 2013, by far the smallest percentage among the Big Five conferences according to documents obtained by CBSSports.com.
Each of the other power conferences -- ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC -- returned at least 90 percent of revenues back to members.
That Pac-12 figure shows another side to the annual crowing by conferences over their revenue distribution. The conference last month announced it had a record $334 million in revenue for fiscal 2013 but a closer look shows is distributed only $228 million to members -- a $106 million disparity.
The next-highest disparity among Big Five conferences is the ACC at $23.5 million.
The Pac-12's chief financial officer said the nine-figure difference is due mostly to the league owning and operating its own network. The Big Ten (Fox), SEC (ESPN) and Texas (ESPN) have media partners for their networks. The Pac-12 is the only such entity that runs its own network.
“When Texas reports their numbers … they're just showing the check they received from ESPN," said that CFO, Ron McQuate. "They're not showing the revenues and expense they're incurred from operating the Longhorn Network."
The question, then, becomes if that 68 percent return rate will improve for Pac-12 schools?
One Pac-12 source said the rate of return will improve but will always be substantially different than other leagues. The ACC has the next lowest return rate to members at 90.8 percent. (See below.)
"What our members are focused on, rightly, is how much money we give back to them,” said Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, “and are we growing the network?"
McQuate added “Being in the start-up phase, that implies we're going to grow. That's inherent in the start up, thus far we are on plan and delighted with performance with the network. It's certainly a long-term investment for us."
The Pac-12 Network had been on the air for a total of only 10 ½ months when the fiscal year ended on June 30, 2013, McQuate said.
The documents obtained by CBSSports.com are a compilation of IRS 990 tax return forms. A more detailed Pac-12 look from the San Jose Mercury News can be seen here. CBSSports.com's Jeremy Fowler further broke down conference expenses across the nation.
The documents show that while the Pac-12 led the Big Five in revenue, it was third in average distribution to schools -- $19 million. (Eleven schools made $19.8 million. Utah collected only $10.2 million, bringing the average down. The school doesn't get a full share until 2015.)
The real figure is more like $18.5 million per school according to Mercury News.
Both the SEC and Big Ten returned more to their schools despite having generated less revenue than the Pac-12. The Pac-12 per-school increase from fiscal 2012 ranged from $4 million to $8 million, McQuate confirmed.
The breakdown*
Big Ten -- 93.6 percent back to members (24.8 million average per school)
SEC -- 92.8 percent ($20.7 million per school)
Big 12 -- 92.2 percent ($18.5 million)
ACC -- 90.8 percent ($16.9 million)
Pac-12 -- 68.3 percent ($19 million)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-68-percent-of-its-record-revenues-to-schools
The Pac-12 distributed only 68 percent of its revenue to members in fiscal 2013, by far the smallest percentage among the Big Five conferences according to documents obtained by CBSSports.com.
Each of the other power conferences -- ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC -- returned at least 90 percent of revenues back to members.
That Pac-12 figure shows another side to the annual crowing by conferences over their revenue distribution. The conference last month announced it had a record $334 million in revenue for fiscal 2013 but a closer look shows is distributed only $228 million to members -- a $106 million disparity.
The next-highest disparity among Big Five conferences is the ACC at $23.5 million.
The Pac-12's chief financial officer said the nine-figure difference is due mostly to the league owning and operating its own network. The Big Ten (Fox), SEC (ESPN) and Texas (ESPN) have media partners for their networks. The Pac-12 is the only such entity that runs its own network.
“When Texas reports their numbers … they're just showing the check they received from ESPN," said that CFO, Ron McQuate. "They're not showing the revenues and expense they're incurred from operating the Longhorn Network."
The question, then, becomes if that 68 percent return rate will improve for Pac-12 schools?
One Pac-12 source said the rate of return will improve but will always be substantially different than other leagues. The ACC has the next lowest return rate to members at 90.8 percent. (See below.)
"What our members are focused on, rightly, is how much money we give back to them,” said Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, “and are we growing the network?"
McQuate added “Being in the start-up phase, that implies we're going to grow. That's inherent in the start up, thus far we are on plan and delighted with performance with the network. It's certainly a long-term investment for us."
The Pac-12 Network had been on the air for a total of only 10 ½ months when the fiscal year ended on June 30, 2013, McQuate said.
The documents obtained by CBSSports.com are a compilation of IRS 990 tax return forms. A more detailed Pac-12 look from the San Jose Mercury News can be seen here. CBSSports.com's Jeremy Fowler further broke down conference expenses across the nation.
The documents show that while the Pac-12 led the Big Five in revenue, it was third in average distribution to schools -- $19 million. (Eleven schools made $19.8 million. Utah collected only $10.2 million, bringing the average down. The school doesn't get a full share until 2015.)
The real figure is more like $18.5 million per school according to Mercury News.
Both the SEC and Big Ten returned more to their schools despite having generated less revenue than the Pac-12. The Pac-12 per-school increase from fiscal 2012 ranged from $4 million to $8 million, McQuate confirmed.
The breakdown*
Big Ten -- 93.6 percent back to members (24.8 million average per school)
SEC -- 92.8 percent ($20.7 million per school)
Big 12 -- 92.2 percent ($18.5 million)
ACC -- 90.8 percent ($16.9 million)
Pac-12 -- 68.3 percent ($19 million)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-68-percent-of-its-record-revenues-to-schools
Last edited:
Somewhere, perhaps in this thread, it was speculated that there would be a consolidation of ACC, Big 12 and PAC 12 into one network. The idea being that one network would offer every single conference game in those three conferences. I would tend to think that if done right, they could package that network as a streaming option on a subscription basis and sell it to a lot of people. There's a lot of firepower in those markets, and revenues would be substantial, I would think. No beholden to ESPN, either. The LHN would have to be scrapped, and who knows how the dweebs in Austin would take to that idea.
The Pac 12 Conference is incorporated as a 501(c)(03)
Quick Facts:
Ein: 941459048
Date Established: 1959/07
Deductability Status: Contributions are deductible
Revenue: $374,019,275 as of 2014/06
Income: $374,019,275 as of 2014/06
Assets: $113,315,196 as of 2014/06
Accounting Year End: 2014/06
Latest Tax Filing (date): 2014/06
Classification:
Nonprofit type: 501(c)(03)
Educational Organization
https://www.citizenaudit.org/organization/941459048/PAC-12 CONFERENCE/
Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non...-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations
Quick Facts:
Ein: 941459048
Date Established: 1959/07
Deductability Status: Contributions are deductible
Revenue: $374,019,275 as of 2014/06
Income: $374,019,275 as of 2014/06
Assets: $113,315,196 as of 2014/06
Accounting Year End: 2014/06
Latest Tax Filing (date): 2014/06
Classification:
Nonprofit type: 501(c)(03)
Educational Organization
https://www.citizenaudit.org/organization/941459048/PAC-12 CONFERENCE/
Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non...-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations
To clarify, the P12 Network only has about 12 million subscribers
"The fact remains that the Pac-12 Network lags far behind their rivals in distribution. (SEC Network — 69.1 million homes; Big Ten Network — 62 million; P12N — 12.3 million.) That's another sore spot for fans."
http://www.sltrib.com/sports/3693065-155/scott-d-pierce-fans-out-of
"There are roughly 12 million subscribers to the Pac12Nets. "
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...next-as-att-de-emphasizes-u-verse/#more-42157
Thanks. Google did not yield something newer than the Wikipedia page I linked.
My friend at Dish continues to lay off staff. Cord cutting will flatten out eventually. The question is when. I agree that we made a mistake not partnering today. But what will tomorrow be? If your attached to a partner with shrinking distribution? I'd think down the road we could sell the pac12 network for a high price to the next bidder as part of the deal. If not then we offer a streaming package by 2024 while all others are married to some sports package. In the ends its tier 3 rights were talking about (after ESPN and Fox) and maybe some ownership of the content (part of owning the network). Hopefully in the future a majority of our games are tier1 and tier2 for a change.
It didn't go the way they planned.
My friend at Dish continues to lay off staff. Cord cutting will flatten out eventually. The question is when. I agree that we made a mistake not partnering today. But what will tomorrow be? If your attached to a partner with shrinking distribution? I'd think down the road we could sell the pac12 network for a high price to the next bidder as part of the deal. If not then we offer a streaming package by 2024 while all others are married to some sports package. In the ends its tier 3 rights were talking about (after ESPN and Fox) and maybe some ownership of the content (part of owning the network). Hopefully in the future a majority of our games are tier1 and tier2 for a change.
It didn't go the way they planned.
This is way better than reading about your daily poop.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Yeah. The way this is being publicly discussed in the media by the conferences power players spells trouble to me.
Last edited:
The writing is on the wall. It has been for a while. From the moment the universities didn't support Scott's OU/OSU proposal, most of what I've heard from Scott hasn't been vision or leadership. It's been "that's what the presidents and chancellors decided" on things like not accepting the ATT proposal last summer.
Oregonian Article linked here is a good read and starting to get some play now too.
I have to wonder if the athletic directors who have complained about the direction of the conference in recent months, particularly Scott's move to protect his own image over the conference's, are nearing a tipping point.
Former Oregon State athletic director Bob De Carolis, now working at Michigan, told me earlier this month, "The sitting ADs can't say anything because they're not going to get the public support of their presidents yet. But people are frustrated."
I have to wonder if the athletic directors who have complained about the direction of the conference in recent months, particularly Scott's move to protect his own image over the conference's, are nearing a tipping point.
Former Oregon State athletic director Bob De Carolis, now working at Michigan, told me earlier this month, "The sitting ADs can't say anything because they're not going to get the public support of their presidents yet. But people are frustrated."
I really do wish we had brought in the Okie states looking back on it.. Would have helped with dipping into the Texas recruiting market.
Would have been worth while if it would have allowed for a renegotiation of TV deals. Because of the Network, revenue distribution is not nearly as high as expected. Would be less if they added another 2 mouths to feed.
I think the Okie schools would jump at a chance to move to the P12 and leave Texas in the new SWC+some eastern schools hanging by a thread.
If the Pac-12 were to expand, I think the academic side is a big driver to get the presidents and chancellors on board. Only looking at the schools that have D1A football programs. Also only looking within the geographic footprint of mountain & pacific time zones + CO border states (we'll include TX in that and ignore that strip of OK panhandle). AAU and ARWU is what they care about on the academic side, because they're looking for research partnerships and the money they bring.
AAU Members within footprint:
Rice University
Texas A&M University
University of Kansas
University of Texas
University of Missouri (not in current footprint, but becomes so if expansion into Kansas or Oklahoma happens)
ARWU Top 100 universities:
#37 University of Texas
#100 Texas A&M
With the last round of expansion, CU brought an AAU member that is #34 on ARWU. Utah is #93 on ARWU.
I think the presidents and chancellors would approve an Oklahoma without hesitation if they came with a Kansas or Texas. The ideal for the Pac-12 if it ever went to 16 from a revenue and research perspective would be Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Missouri. You could swap out Mizzou for a TTU or Houston, though, and it would work out just fine.
AAU Members within footprint:
Rice University
Texas A&M University
University of Kansas
University of Texas
University of Missouri (not in current footprint, but becomes so if expansion into Kansas or Oklahoma happens)
ARWU Top 100 universities:
#37 University of Texas
#100 Texas A&M
With the last round of expansion, CU brought an AAU member that is #34 on ARWU. Utah is #93 on ARWU.
I think the presidents and chancellors would approve an Oklahoma without hesitation if they came with a Kansas or Texas. The ideal for the Pac-12 if it ever went to 16 from a revenue and research perspective would be Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Missouri. You could swap out Mizzou for a TTU or Houston, though, and it would work out just fine.
You are talking about adding UT though and no one wants them.
I think the move would be KU and OU for a Pac-14. Blow up the Big 12 and see what shakes out for us. The worst that could happen would be that we ended up filling the map in the west with 2 from New Mexico, UNLV, SDSU and Boise State to get to 16.
I agree that KU and OU make the most sense, but I don't see them being able to shed their little brothers.
I don't think @sackman has a problem with KU and OU. He questions whether the Pac-12 has to go beyond 12 and he doesn't want UT in the conference.
But going to 14 with KU and OU (which would cause Utah to move to the North)... I'm not sure that would cause much upsetness.
I'd be up for it.
Adding schools for academic reasons is only part of the larger picture. Since this is in the Pac12 Network thread Ill assume your trying to move the needle on TV revenue. To which I dont think KU adds much while OU does add possibly a slice of the Texas TV markets. But by adding two you're asking the schools to divide the revenue by 14 instead of by 12. Good luck.
UT is the big fish in the room. They move the needle with an OU or an A&M that gets you the super big next TV contract. They are not giving up their $15m per year from ESPN for another 10 years or so.
So I am kind of with Sacky that adding more schools, today, doesn't add up to much.
It's a shame that USD and SDSU are not big time because San Diego Metro is a big tappable market. As is Las Vegas Metro with UN and UNLV maybe. Out of those two we pretty much have all or part of the large population centers within the footprint sewn up.
UT is the big fish in the room. They move the needle with an OU or an A&M that gets you the super big next TV contract. They are not giving up their $15m per year from ESPN for another 10 years or so.
So I am kind of with Sacky that adding more schools, today, doesn't add up to much.
It's a shame that USD and SDSU are not big time because San Diego Metro is a big tappable market. As is Las Vegas Metro with UN and UNLV maybe. Out of those two we pretty much have all or part of the large population centers within the footprint sewn up.
It's not just about home markets. It's about national carriage. KU and OU have national prestige. The former for basketball, the latter for football. Either one, no matter who the conference opponent, can draw a number for an ESPN of FS1 weeknight national game in those respective sports. They make PACN much more valuable.
I'm curious. On ACC boards discussing conference expansion, the talk of shedding dead weight frequently comes up and schools like Wake Forest and Boston College get mentioned. Is there anyone in the Pac12 you guys would trade for KU and OU?
I think just about every school pulls their weight in the Pac-12 in one area or another. We don't seem to have a single school that is bad at everything.