Football
Sponsored by

PAC 12 gonna pull it off? (Conference money)

3,419 Views | 15 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Brian Ethridge
Michibear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/investors-surprisingly-line-up-for-small-stake-in-pac-12-at-5b-valuation?fbclid=IwAR2C6V_qZ1Y4VeJ6jdV8cFnYrXjdaLoDaVJ_2IZGsgrlivPPAOMdtGbAcpI

The Pac-12 has already received multiple bids from private investors of at least $750 million, based on a valuation of $5 billion and up, according to Sports Business Daily. And its plan is to reportedly spend the next couple of months working with The Raine Group, which it hired in January as an investment advisor, to ultimately decide whether to accept one of the offers.

The move is meant to infuse cash into a conference that sent out roughly $31 million to each of its member institutions during the last reported past fiscal year, trailing the SEC payout of $43.7 million and the Big Ten's record $54 million distributed to each school. And if it comes to fruition, it would be a huge boost for conference commissioner Larry Scott, who has received heaps of criticism as the league has struggled to keep pace with other Power 5 conferences on and off the field under his watch.

Under the proposed deal, the Pac-12 would spin off its broadcast rights, sponsorships, distribution agreements and more into a holding company dubbed "Pac-12 NewCo," with the conference retaining managerial control. The private investor(s) would own a minority stake in the holding company and potentially exit by either selling said stake or the Pac-12 taking it public. In the meantime, the investor(s) would be in line to nab a significant payout when the conference strikes its next television deal, which is expected in 2024. In its last TV deal, the Pac-12 inked a 12-year contract with ESPN and Fox in 2011 worth around $3 billion, which at the time was the largest Tier 1 broadcast deal in history.
CorsicanaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So how does public institutions (they all are except for USC and Stanford) selling assets (in this case rights to future revenues) to private parties when those assets are not surplus or when the sale is not to pay for a public good (ie selling future revenue from a toll road to finance the construction of the toll road) even work?

If there was a reasonable certainty that the new contract would be a big increase, would they not do better to borrow the money to distribute and pay it back when the new contract is in place? Or better yet, do like the tax payers who support them do and wait until the money comes in and spend it then.

This just seems like horrible public policy to me.
Illigitimus non carborundum
GRIZZLY79ER
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The most capitalist play ever, by educational institutions hell bent to instruct and conform their students to the dark art of socialism.
RegentCoverup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GRIZZLY79ER said:

The most capitalist play ever, by educational institutions hell bent to instruct and conform their students to the dark art of socialism.
Precisely.

This is like having someone invite you out to a 5 star restaurant, buying the most expensive bottles of wine and a bill for a dozen people and then having them hand you the bill.

These investors will expect a return.
CHP Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TellMeYouLoveMe said:

GRIZZLY79ER said:

The most capitalist play ever, by educational institutions hell bent to instruct and conform their students to the dark art of socialism.
Precisely.

This is like having someone invite you out to a 5 star restaurant, buying the most expensive bottles of wine and a bill for a dozen people and then having them hand you the bill.

These investors will expect a return.
"These investors will expect a return." Totally agree. Return will go beyond dollars and cents. Management decisions and policies will be affected. Like, TV decisions, where championship games will be played, etc. Responsibilities currently under control of ADs and institutions will be handed over to the investor. This deal is already thrown a cog in the wheel. If not mistaken, Cal and Stanford had/have investors for stadium naming rights but PAC 12 voters nixed the deals until the investor situation is resolved. Sidebar, PAC 12 has 11 AM PST kickoffs under review to attract more eastern eyeballs to watch west coast football. More eyeballs will definitely help to up the ante. As for me, I want to be the PAC 12 Commissioner. Where else can one get paid so much for gaveling a meeting.
Mahan1979
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm just surprised there are enough fans watching the PAC12 to justify this kind of money. They can't even get a team into the playoff.
LTbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GRIZZLY79ER said:

The most capitalist play ever, by educational institutions hell bent to instruct and conform their students to the dark art of socialism.
Michibear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm trying to figure out if this is as good a deal for the PAC as it is hyped to be.

Investor's up-front money: $750M for 15% stake in the conference
Divided by 12 team: $62.5M/team
Spread out over 25 years: $2.5M/team/year
(My understanding is that conference wanted a 25 year commitment)

With a 15% stake, does that mean 15% of all future gross revenues goes to investors instead of the schools? Seems like up-front money is countered by future revenue decline/loss. Short-term gain for long-term drain...


historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CorsicanaBear said:

This just seems like horrible public policy to me.

That seems to be all they do on the Left coast these days!
RegentCoverup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Michibear said:

I'm trying to figure out if this is as good a deal for the PAC as it is hyped to be.

Investor's up-front money: $750M for 15% stake in the conference
Divided by 12 team: $62.5M/team
Spread out over 25 years: $2.5M/team/year
(My understanding is that conference wanted a 25 year commitment)

With a 15% stake, does that mean 15% of all future gross revenues goes to investors instead of the schools? Seems like up-front money is countered by future revenue decline/loss. Short-term gain for long-term drain...



Short answer on the 15% is no. They would in effect be either long term bond holders, betting on moving assets to a corporation they create and affixing a fee, or betting on exiting after the venture appreciates. But taking the revenue off the top would likely violate not for profit status. (Not a tax lawyer but I'm ab 50% certain.)

No way it's going to produce a current income stream without taking money out of a few universities that can't afford it. They arguable produced a very lopsided valuation report that was leaked on purpose and talked to a few salesman investment bankers.

Some of these schools athletic programs are on life support. This deal basically puts about five ADs out to pasture.

There is a legislator in every PAC 12 state that looked at this and laughed.
CorsicanaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Short-term gain for long-term drain...
Exactly. Borrow at the bond rate instead of giving equity if you need the cash today.

But why do you need the cash so badly right now? Is it just an attempt to overcome the negative prestige of the lower payouts? Keeping up with the Jones's? The PAC 12 needs to tell its own a story its own way. It's the perfect case for college football as a regional sport, the opposite of the national message from ESPN. If they really want to put it to the man they are in the position to do it.
Illigitimus non carborundum
Brian Ethridge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
TellMeYouLoveMe said:

Michibear said:

I'm trying to figure out if this is as good a deal for the PAC as it is hyped to be.

Investor's up-front money: $750M for 15% stake in the conference
Divided by 12 team: $62.5M/team
Spread out over 25 years: $2.5M/team/year
(My understanding is that conference wanted a 25 year commitment)

With a 15% stake, does that mean 15% of all future gross revenues goes to investors instead of the schools? Seems like up-front money is countered by future revenue decline/loss. Short-term gain for long-term drain...



Short answer on the 15% is no. They would in effect be either long term bond holders, betting on moving assets to a corporation they create and affixing a fee, or betting on exiting after the venture appreciates. But taking the revenue off the top would likely violate not for profit status. (Not a tax lawyer but I'm ab 50% certain.)

No way it's going to produce a current income stream without taking money out of a few universities that can't afford it. They arguable produced a very lopsided valuation report that was leaked on purpose and talked to a few salesman investment bankers.

Some of these schools athletic programs are on life support. This deal basically puts about five ADs out to pasture.

There is a legislator in every PAC 12 state that looked at this and laughed.



Broke ass deal.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mahan1979 said:

I'm just surprised there are enough fans watching the PAC12 to justify this kind of money. They can't even get a team into the playoff.
The Big 12 is throwing stones from a glass house on that one. Oklahoma is the only team from our conference ever to make the playoff, and they've gotten beaten down twice and choked away a three-score lead in their other appearance.
Brian Ethridge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
bear2be2 said:

Mahan1979 said:

I'm just surprised there are enough fans watching the PAC12 to justify this kind of money. They can't even get a team into the playoff.
The Big 12 is throwing stones from a glass house on that one. Oklahoma is the only team from our conference ever to make the playoff, and they've gotten beaten down twice and choked away a three-score lead in their other appearance.


And every Big 12 team made at least 10 million more last season
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brian Ethridge said:

bear2be2 said:

Mahan1979 said:

I'm just surprised there are enough fans watching the PAC12 to justify this kind of money. They can't even get a team into the playoff.
The Big 12 is throwing stones from a glass house on that one. Oklahoma is the only team from our conference ever to make the playoff, and they've gotten beaten down twice and choked away a three-score lead in their other appearance.
And every Big 12 team made at least 10 million more last season
Which is irrelevant to the point Mahan was making.
BearForce
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jon Wilner doing revenue vs expenses math...

The Mercury News: Comparing Pac-12 expenses to other Power Fives: Is spending in San Francisco reasonable or excessive?.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/12/comparing-pac-12-expenses-to-other-power-fives-is-spending-in-san-francisco-reasonable-or-excessive/
Brian Ethridge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
bear2be2 said:

Brian Ethridge said:

bear2be2 said:

Mahan1979 said:

I'm just surprised there are enough fans watching the PAC12 to justify this kind of money. They can't even get a team into the playoff.
The Big 12 is throwing stones from a glass house on that one. Oklahoma is the only team from our conference ever to make the playoff, and they've gotten beaten down twice and choked away a three-score lead in their other appearance.
And every Big 12 team made at least 10 million more last season
Which is irrelevant to the point Mahan was making.


It's relevant because this is about money.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.