Goldmember
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 2,895
- Reaction score
- 1,237
- Points
- 113
Yeah, it’s worse.No it isn't.
Yeah, it’s worse.No it isn't.
VC vs PEHere is my question, as I am obviously naive to this stuff (and most stuff,):
normally if you are a start-up company and you get an investment from PE, they now own X% of your company (some percentage of shares) and may (probably do) have some ability to have a say in the major decisions of the company, perhaps even choosing executives, where you are located, and so on.
They don't then really get paid back their investment (and more) until the company sells ... which is the same thing as all the original investors and creators of the company. Right??
So how does this translate into the PE investment into the Big Ten?? When, how, and to whom, would the Big Ten ever be sold (to)??? How do the PE folks make their money (eventually) off this deal??
Here is my question, as I am obviously naive to this stuff (and most stuff,):
normally if you are a start-up company and you get an investment from PE, they now own X% of your company (some percentage of shares) and may (probably do) have some ability to have a say in the major decisions of the company, perhaps even choosing executives, where you are located, and so on.
They don't then really get paid back their investment (and more) until the company sells ... which is the same thing as all the original investors and creators of the company. Right??
So how does this translate into the PE investment into the Big Ten?? When, how, and to whom, would the Big Ten ever be sold (to)??? How do the PE folks make their money (eventually) off this deal??
OK, Let me see if I got it roughly correct:It was reported yesterday that now it would be 2.4 Billion, and that the investor is UC Investments. A fund associated with the University of California pension system. Each school would receive over 100 million with the big schools getting more. I believe UC investments would receive a 1/20 share of future earnings, and a 10% share in BiG Ten Enterprises which is the other 1/20 non school share.
Pretty much how I understand it. 1/20 to UC Investments. 1/20 to BTE, which UC Investments would have a 10% share in. BTE would basically be in charge of the leagues TV deals and sponsorships, UC would have a minority investor say in that, but not a say in anything Big Ten football related, scheduling etc. it would push grant of rights to 2046, so the conference would stay together till then.OK, Let me see if I got it roughly correct:
- BTE will be a created entity that takes in all of the revenue from league-wide TV deals
- it will probably pay out a small amount off the top to pay for the conference's operating costs itself
- then distributes the rest to all the shareholders: 20 of them, 1 each for each school, and 2 shares for the PE folks
And in exchange for this, each school gets $100M (though OSU and Michigan will get more).
So it's taking the money early, at the risk that the future earnings may actually (far) exceed what the conference is projecting them to be.
The costs schools are struggling with are the 20 million in revenue sharing with the players, and trying to fund the extra 20 scholarships now allowed for football. Weird thing is, revenue sharing is a %. And I don’t know if this investment would raise that 20 million, I believe it’s already slated to go up 4% next yearWhat are these costs, that are due right now and are so scary??
Do we (I mean the U, of MN) have $100M in the red that we have to pay off right now?
Honestly, I'd rather cut way back on the number of varsity sports. Sorry, but not really sorry, things like tennis, golf, track/cross country, swimming ... these can be club sports.
There is no requirement to increase football scholarships and I believe the SEC schools instituted a hard (or otherwise an agreement) to stay at 85. You don't need 105 scholarship guys to be successful.The costs schools are struggling with are the 20 million in revenue sharing with the players, and trying to fund the extra 20 scholarships now allowed for football. Weird thing is, revenue sharing is a %. And I don’t know if this investment would raise that 20 million, I believe it’s already slated to go up 4% next year
Considering the U is now charging its 57,000 students a $200 fee to the athletic dept. No I don’t think the rights deal covers it. At least at lower revenue schools.There is no requirement to increase football scholarships and I believe the SEC schools instituted a hard (or otherwise an agreement) to stay at 85. You don't need 105 scholarship guys to be successful.
But sure the $20M rev share. But that should be paid for by the increase in TV deals, shouldn't it?
The costs schools are struggling with are the 20 million in revenue sharing with the players, and trying to fund the extra 20 scholarships now allowed for football. Weird thing is, revenue sharing is a %. And I don’t know if this investment would raise that 20 million, I believe it’s already slated to go up 4% next year
Pretty much how I understand it. 1/20 to UC Investments. 1/20 to BTE, which UC Investments would have a 10% share in. BTE would basically be in charge of the leagues TV deals and sponsorships, UC would have a minority investor say in that, but not a say in anything Big Ten football related, scheduling etc. it would push grant of rights to 2046, so the conference would stay together till then.
I completely agree, I’m just posting what’s being reported, trying to understand it myself. I also read that the pension fund would have the right to sell their share after x amount of years, which is probably when it would really start to go downhill.They could cut/freeze costs, renegotiate deals, dream up innovative partial public ownership or funding alternatives, wait until the next tv deal rolls around and shake the money tree. Or, they could give all that future money to the vultures. Money that will be burned immediately and they inevitably need to sell off more to keep the scheme going.