Seed money for a new practices facility?

[MadtownGopher]

Can't we use at least a few mill of this for the practice facility? Probably not, but I thought it was worth mentioning...

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/51064/big-ten-to-distribute-284-million-to-teams

 

[scher215]

Can't we use at least a few mill of this for the practice facility? Probably not, but I thought it was worth mentioning...

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/51064/big-ten-to-distribute-284-million-to-teams

Joel wouldn't ... Norwood, we will have to see.

I would guess that money is already budgeted to go somewhere else, but ya never know. Would be a nice start to a practice facility and improved football facilities.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Looks like the folks who kicked and screamed and thought the Big Ten Network would be a colossal bust were "just a bit outside", as Bob Uecker once said.

 

[Holy Man]

Looks like the folks who kicked and screamed and thought the Big Ten Network would be a colossal bust were "just a bit outside", as Bob Uecker once said.

I understood the BTN blinked in negotiations with the cable companies, too. What would the take be if they had gotten all they wanted on the front end? It does go to show that if you have a product to sell, people will buy it. Lots of big markets in the footprint and alumni everywhere is a pretty good formula for a national network. I doubt any other conference could duplicate it.

 

[jovs]

Joel wouldn't ... Norwood, we will have to see.

I would guess that money is already budgeted to go somewhere else, but ya never know. Would be a nice start to a practice facility and improved football facilities.

Obviously the bulk of it has been budgeted to the athletic department as a whole, but if you recieved 21+ million last year it would be very hard to believe that 24+ million has been applied to the budget this year. Obviously there is some extra money available, is the department in the red or black, that would dictate flexibility in its use.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

Obviously there is some extra money available

I don't think you'll find people at the U that share your thought, unfortunately. It's a lot of allocation methodology nonsense (er... "it's an art, not a science"), but remember the U frequently talks about how they 'subsidize' the athletic department and want to continue to reduce the 'subsidy' and soon have the athletic department be 'self-sufficient'.

---------

No doubt, the Big Ten Network has been good in many respects... but it's fair to point out that their profits this year are actually down from the prior year. Money from networks (in total) other than the BTN that Minnesota sees exceeds the amount received via the BTN by the U.

 

[GoAUpher]

I don't think you'll find people at the U that share your thought, unfortunately. It's a lot of allocation methodology nonsense (er... "it's an art, not a science"), but remember the U frequently talks about how they 'subsidize' the athletic department and want to continue to reduce the 'subsidy' and soon have the athletic department be 'self-sufficient'.

I'm not sure I buy that the wider U wants to end the subsidy. I could see many non-athletics folks looking at it as a way to keep the dept in check. That said, I totally agree that the dept (and Teague) likely want to end that subsidy so that it can't be hung over their head any time they want to do something "controversial". Anyone remember what the size of that "subsidy" has been recently?

 

[station19]

I'm not sure I buy that the wider U wants to end the subsidy. I could see many non-athletics folks looking at it as a way to keep the dept in check. That said, I totally agree that the dept (and Teague) likely want to end that subsidy so that it can't be hung over their head any time they want to do something "controversial". Anyone remember what the size of that "subsidy" has been recently?

The last I read was 1.9 mill. If you add in the cut they should be getting from parking revenue and the lost revenue from the suite/beer issue that the legislature screwed up, they would have finished in the black.

 

[GoAUpher]

The last I read was 1.9 mill. If you add in the cut they should be getting from parking revenue and the lost revenue from the suite/beer issue that the legislature screwed up, they would have finished in the black.

Exactly right.

If they want seed money for various projects, the next few years seem like good ones (assuming that costs don't rise at a much higher rate than is the norm). As you note, there is the addition of alcohol sales to the revenues (approx 2 million per year across all venues), the extra 2 million per year from BTN (which may go up further in future years), and at least 3 million from the Vikings coming in 2014 or 2015. If Teague is able to recoup some parking revenue then the coffers swell a little more.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

I always thought part of the subsidy was parking revenue from PTS relating to extra revenue football, basketball & hockey brought to the department.

Remember, the attendants at the lots are on the PTS payroll line, not the athletic department payroll line. Same with lot maintenance. That is why PTS collects the money.

 

[station19]

I always thought part of the subsidy was parking revenue from PTS relating to extra revenue football, basketball & hockey brought to the department.

Remember, the attendants at the lots are on the PTS payroll line, not the athletic department payroll line. Same with lot maintenance. That is why PTS collects the money.

That's fine if PTS collects it, but how much would they collect if there were no football, basketball, hockey, womens bb and hockey and all the minor sports attracting fans.

Add those attendance figures together, what is that, 600,000?(stab in the dark). A cut of only $5 give you 3 mill per yr.

Edit: On second thought maybe not everyone drives to the game by themselves.

 

[GoAUpher]

I always thought part of the subsidy was parking revenue from PTS relating to extra revenue football, basketball & hockey brought to the department.

If true then that's a horrible, opaque way to do things that allows the U to eff with the athletic department when it sees fit. It should just be revenue that the dept gets (as is true at most other B1G/BCS schools).

Remember, the attendants at the lots are on the PTS payroll line, not the athletic department payroll line. Same with lot maintenance. That is why PTS collects the money.

That's an operating expense and should come out of the revenues before you start talking about a split to the AD. I'm not suggesting the athletic department get all the money on gamedays. PTS should be able to be paid back for operating costs and even a % towards the general PTS fund. But like station19 notes, the revenue from gameday parking wouldn't exist without the athletic events. It makes no sense that PTS should keep all that money instead of sharing the majority of it with the dept that generates the revenue.

 

[AO54]

They're not going to be using money from parking, tickets or concessions for the practice facility because the U knows they can get people to donate for a new gym. They're not going to be getting donations to pay the salary of the new volleyball coach.

 

[GoAUpher]

They're not going to be using money from parking, tickets or concessions for the practice facility because the U knows they can get people to donate for a new gym. They're not going to be getting donations to pay the salary of the new volleyball coach.

I agree. I think you are right on here and should have made this more clear in my earlier post. I could see them using the money to handle further "groundwork" costs for the bball facility (if any of those still exist). I could also see them using excess funds to "finish off" the bball fundraising if fundraising stalled and they needed get the thing built. But I doubt they actually start the process with this money.

I do think this money could be used to cover the FB facility improvements that Kill wants. Those are more of an operating/upkeep cost than a brand new capital project.

 

[station19]

They're not going to be using money from parking, tickets or concessions for the practice facility because the U knows they can get people to donate for a new gym. They're not going to be getting donations to pay the salary of the new volleyball coach.

How's that going so far?

With Teague now talking about making the Sports Pavilion into a BB practice facility, I get the feeling nothing will be done in regards to a practice facility until the long-term future of Williams Arena is decided.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

BTN $ to Minnesota is decreasing... there is no add'l $ from the BTN expected this year.
------

Guys, you're trying to look at things rationally & with reason... but, it's largely a game. Those who set the rules can often make 'reality' fit their agenda.

 

[GoAUpher]

BTN $ to Minnesota is decreasing... there is no add'l $ from the BTN expected this year.
------

Guys, you're trying to look at things rationally & with reason... but, it's largely a game. Those who set the rules can often make 'reality' fit their agenda.

How do you figure? Obviously numbers are can be spun, but what specifically do you think is happening that contradicts Bennett's take?

 

[BleedGopher]

How's that going so far?

With Teague now talking about making the Sports Pavilion into a BB practice facility, I get the feeling nothing will be done in regards to a practice facility until the long-term future of Williams Arena is decided.

I would agree with this and I hope this is the approach taken. As impatient as I am in wanting a practice facility so we don't fall further behind, I am more concerned about the long-term decisions with The Barn and its implications. It makes no sense to build the practice facility at the Pavilion or elsewhere until we know what the plan is for The Barn. I have to imagine that this decision will be at the cornerstone of Teague's master facilities and fundraising plan, at least for the next 5-7 years.

Go Gophers!!

 

[GoAUpher]

I would agree with this and I hope this is the approach taken. As impatient as I am in wanting a practice facility so we don't fall further behind, I am more concerned about the long-term decisions with The Barn and its implications. It makes no sense to build the practice facility at the Pavilion or elsewhere until we know what the plan is for The Barn. I have to imagine that this decision will be at the cornerstone of Teague's master facilities and fundraising plan, at least for the next 5-7 years.

Agreed. It's easy to forget, but Teague really does need to complete a facilities plan before the dept can go gung ho on any projects. I mean, he doesn't HAVE to do this but not doing so would be "penny wise/pound foolish" and opens the prospect of making a mistake that hamstrings the dept later...something a dept that does not have the best record of fundraising can ill afford.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

How do you figure? Obviously numbers are can be spun, but what specifically do you think is happening that contradicts Bennett's take?

I was referring to the U's (and similar schools in general) accounting/budgeting/etc.

Agreed. It's easy to forget, but Teague really does need to complete a facilities plan before the dept can go gung ho on any projects. I mean, he doesn't HAVE to do this but not doing so would be "penny wise/pound foolish" and opens the prospect of making a mistake that hamstrings the dept later...something a dept that does not have the best record of fundraising can ill afford.

Hopefully Teague's approach is a bit different as compared to the one he took several months ago, when a quick decision to try to have VCU's six year cap ex plan amended so a practice facility could be tucked in... the response there from the board was reportedly.. "OK, where did this idea come from? How about you put together a summary of everything the athletic dept. has going on for projects... I've never heard anything about a practice facility until today..."

 

[station19]

I would agree with this and I hope this is the approach taken. As impatient as I am in wanting a practice facility so we don't fall further behind, I am more concerned about the long-term decisions with The Barn and its implications. It makes no sense to build the practice facility at the Pavilion or elsewhere until we know what the plan is for The Barn. I have to imagine that this decision will be at the cornerstone of Teague's master facilities and fundraising plan, at least for the next 5-7 years.

Go Gophers!!

I'm starting to think Tubby will never step foot in the practice facility during his tenure.

 

[Gold Vision]

I was referring to the U's (and similar schools in general) accounting/budgeting/etc.



Hopefully Teague's approach is a bit different as compared to the one he took several months ago, when a quick decision to try to have VCU's six year cap ex plan amended so a practice facility could be tucked in... the response there from the board was reportedly.. "OK, where did this idea come from? How about you put together a summary of everything the athletic dept. has going on for projects... I've never heard anything about a practice facility until today..."

Do you have a link to this board response other than your own jottings? I haven't found this reported anywhere but your posts. Just curious because you use quotations like you have a written source.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

Do you have a link to this board response other than your own jottings? I haven't found this reported anywhere but your posts. Just curious because you use quotations like you have a written source.

Sure, in addition to some information that's not out in the public there are things such as this article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

In addition, some of the board minutes can be found here on the VCU.edu site.

Of interest to you may be the following Finance, Investment and Property Committee minutes:
August 24, 2011: Around page 15 you'll see the amended capital projects plan discussed (i.e., the addition of the basketball practice facility to the 6-year plan).
November 10, 2011 and February 9, 2012: You'll see an 'Athletics Strategic Plan' added to the meeting.

Some of the representations of Teague's accomplishments at VCU have ranged from misleading to factually incorrect.