|
Replies: 15
| visibility 1
|
Rookie [10]
TigerPulse: 44%
Posts: 16
Joined: 9/26/09
|
$84MM
Jun 17, 2013, 7:41 PM
|
|
Coots estimated take this coming year. Have to get an ACC solution. Cannot continue to be behind $20MM/yr. Look at record vs spending. It does matter and we are not yet catching up.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [19808]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18339
Joined: 9/10/05
|
but they need the extra $20MM for bail and lawyer fees
Jun 17, 2013, 7:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [889]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 1327
Joined: 6/23/05
|
Auburn make as much as the #####?
Jun 17, 2013, 8:01 PM
|
|
Does their record show it? Can't count the $cam year. Unfortunately for us they have stockpiled some talent and it is paying off for them. Let UT, UGA and UF get back up and see about the ##### record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [139852]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33839
Joined: 12/5/10
|
Honk Shu.***
Jun 17, 2013, 8:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 885
Joined: 10/17/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1040
Joined: 10/13/02
|
And they need every penny to pour into there dumps.
Jun 17, 2013, 9:49 PM
|
|
If I m not mistaken they are pumping $5,000,000 into there brand new crumbling baseball stadium. And it ll still be in the middle of a dump
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [31]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 84
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: $84MM
Jun 17, 2013, 10:31 PM
|
|
Not sure ACC is where we need to make up the money this coming year. USuC kills us in revenue from merchandise and licensing. Wish I had a link to the comparison between them and us in all of the revenue categories. It was eye opening. Not sure where we were in alumni contributions, but my guess is that we lose out there too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1062]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 885
Joined: 10/17/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: $84MM
Jun 18, 2013, 12:18 AM
|
|
Clemson's athletic department does not claim IPTAY contributions as a part of their revenue (though they do count actual expenditures from IPTAY to the University). South Carolina opts to report all Gamecock Club and YES revenue as a part of their overall athletic budget. The actual difference is far less than $20 million. I've done detailed breakdowns in the past and don't feel like doing it again but the information is out there if you feel like investing some time. But there is no single source for an apples to apples comparison of the two schools budgets. The $84 M number you are seeing comes from the Department of Education and is a voluntarily reported number with no specific criteria required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [158]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 729
Joined: 10/11/10
|
Re: $84MM
Jun 18, 2013, 9:25 AM
|
|
not exactly... the numbers reported do include "contributions" which I would expect are IPTAY and Gamecock Club. if not, there should be that big of a discrepancy between the schools to make up the difference. fact is, we're falling behind. here's the 2011 #'s.
CLEMSON
Ticket Sales $20,736,842
Student Fees $1,594,413
School Funds $3,511,611
Contributions $14,171,740
Rights/Licensing $19,729,709
Other Revenue $1,430,662
Total Revenue $61,174,977
Scholarships $10,425,599
Coaching Staff $20,457,842
Building/Grounds $6,811,774
Other Expenses $20,672,669
Total Expenses $58,367,884
S CAROLINA
Ticket Sales $19,763,502
Student Fees $2,248,275
School Funds $0
Contributions $24,393,202
Rights/Licensing $29,729,826
Other Revenue $7,678,421
Total Revenue $83,813,226
Scholarships $8,468,686
Coaching Staff $26,835,485
Building/Grounds $15,745,776
Other Expenses $29,475,764
Total Expenses $80,525,711
the big thing i noticed is USC is making about $10m more in Rights/Licensing, which is more than just apparel sales. They are also beating us by about $10m in contributions. Also, we're having to contribute $3.5m form the general fund that they don't. And remember their news release stated that the $84.4m was before they got there bowl payout from the SEC, which is going to push it higher and exceed what the ACC provides.
here's the source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6980
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: $84MM
Jun 18, 2013, 9:36 AM
|
|
Clemson does report contributions but that does not include all of the IPTAY funds. Clemson has always separated this figure which leads to a discrepancy in reporting. Also the Rights/Licensing includes the TV rights deals. The ACCs new contract does not start until we go to 14 teams and is expected to increase again with the addition of ND. This should close the gap some in that department. As far as bowl revenue. The SEC will get more revenue per team but the gap is not as large because the ACC pays for bowl travel before distributing funds. Yes the SEC is ahead of us but not by as much as some may think. When the playoff money and new equal split contract start in 2014 things will become more clear how close the conference really are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [158]
TigerPulse: 58%
Posts: 729
Joined: 10/11/10
|
Re: $84MM
Jun 18, 2013, 10:30 AM
|
|
Contributions does include IPTAY because STS shows how they get to the $14m in '11.
http://www.shakinthesouthland.com/2013/3/28/4092422/iptay-finances-and-cuad-budget-fy12
If you saying that IPTAY has a large "rainy-day-fund" that is not reported, then that is because it's not an annual contribution... it's a carry over from prior years and guess what, other schools like USC also have "rainy-day-funds" in their booster club too. And yes, Clemson behind in radio rights/etc. and the new ACC contract will catch us up, but the new SEC Network in '14 will catapult them ahead with greater distance.
i'm just trying to be a realist. USC runs their program like a business while we try to run ours like a country club. i had a good friend in Greenville that sold Coke Products in the upstate. he said Coke calculated that Clemson lost about $300-$400k a game by having pass outs at halftime. And that was about 15 years ago. We also lost money because we wouldn't allow for hawkers to sell in the stands like all other schools did, which increases sales to fans that won't leave their seats. And another friend had the peanut contract. At the time, Clemson only allowed shelled peanuts because they made the clean up easier. Problem is that peanuts in the shell sell 100x better and are more profitable. i know I'm talking "peanuts" but it all adds up. it's time to get rid of Judge Smails and bring in an Al Czervik. DRad might be the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: $84MM
Jun 18, 2013, 1:12 PM
[ in reply to Re: $84MM ] |
|
I'm not going to take the time to deconstruct the numbers once again because it is tiresome and complicated. If you want to search my post history I have done it in great detail in the past. You are comparing apples to oranges. There is no standardization to these reports you are looking at. What Clemson calls rights/licensing is not necessarily what sCar calls rights/licensing, Money is collected and reported in different ways. yes, South Carolina has pulled ahead of Clemson in gross revenue collection for athletics but it is not nearly $20 million per year more. Yes Clemson needs to be mindful of this gap. However, Clemson funds significantly less sports than sCar does. A little common sense should ease your concern over rights/licensing. Clemson has been dialed in for 30+ years as a top 25 team in this department. Collegiate Licensing ranking are readily available on the Internet. Only in the last 5 years or so has Carolina moved ahead of us on this list and they are only, in their best year, 7 spots ahead of us. This is not generating $10 million more a year in revenue. The money you see listed as "contributions" from IPTAY to the University have nothing to do with actual member contributions to IPTAY. This is the money IPTAY pays the University for scholarships and approved projects. By a "rainy day" fund I assume you mean the sizeable cash reserve that IPTAY has. This is significantly larger than any sCar has because they don't really have one and have maxed out their borrowing limit. Of course you don't count a "reserve" as part of annual income - but nowhere in the CUAD budget is the gross revenue collected by IPTAY reflected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10762
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: $84MM
Jun 18, 2013, 1:17 PM
[ in reply to Re: $84MM ] |
|
Further, IPTAY brought in earnings of $19.6 million in FY 2011 so you can dismiss the numbers you are looking at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17070
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Re: $84MM
Jun 18, 2013, 9:51 AM
|
|
I hear this often viztiz, can you provide us with a link with the total contributions to iptay?
I'd imagine iptay has to report all contributions and expenditures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 15
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
