A budget that small doesn’t warrant a seasoned CFO. Especially as a tiny piece of a larger org with financial ops at the higher level. RG shouldn’t even be acting as a chief exec anywayI’ll say it again. He’s needs a seasoned CFO.
Typically, private equity firms such as CVC invest for the long term in companies with a growth profile. They make their money when their investment grows and they sell their stake. The industry term is called "exiting the investment."
I don’t see how they will harvest their investment before the next TV contact. You?From the article @The Alabaster Yak quoted:
I don't think I can put enough emojis in to describe my response to the first sentence.
Whoever wrote that obviously has zero idea how PE firms are structured and operate. I mean it's such journalism malpractice to write that statement that the author immediately exposes themselves as an unserious financial idot.
I'm currently spending an inordinate amount of time working through the extensive legal (contractual and regulatory) issues involved with a PE firm wanting to extend the length of their investment to hold it for longer than 7 years.
"Long term" my ass. Hold periods are 3-5 years. They've been trending up for the last decade, but more than 7 is pretty damn hard to manage within the typical pe fund legal structure.
It may be "long term" in terms of investors not fleeing because of a couple quarters of bad results as happens in publicly traded companies, but that's not a valid comparison. 3-5, and legally hard to get past 7 is not long term.
Anyway, all of that is not to say that it's a good or bad deal for the B12 or CU. It could be a net positive for both.
@Buff_nc has had the best "both sides of the deal win" investment thesis I've heard so far.
And if that is the thesis, I'd back it. When market participants are notoriously timid and conservative (small c) as universities notoriously are, an aggressive move in a dynamic market is usually the winning move.
Just be ready when they finally figure out how to counterpunch.
gotta get the tv rights value up big time. ratings. ratings. ratings. that is the long term pay off.I don’t see how they will harvest their investment before the next TV contact. You?
Dominate the cfp with purchased talent. Someone else* will want to buy before it goes to contract.I don’t see how they will harvest their investment before the next TV contact. You?
Exactly, thus this seems like at least a 7 year horizon to me with stipulations for the conference staying intact. This ain’t your normal PE deal, to me.gotta get the tv rights value up big time. ratings. ratings. ratings. that is the long term pay off.
I hear you. Purchased talent could be Clemson and/ir FSU as value drivers in front of next contract.Dominate the cfp with purchased talent. Someone else* will want to buy before it goes to contract.
*Media co would be the hypothesized purchaser. $10 says that somewhere in the purchase agreement is a stipulation that whoever owns this equity piece gets first bite of the apple when the next media deal goes to market.
I mean, I'm serious when I say I would back this investment thesis.
It’s gotta be what some of the money is to be used for. There’s not enough cache in the current teams to drive huge value for thr next contract IMO.It’d be cool, IMO, if this was to somehow help facilitate the top ACC programs coming to the Big 12.
I think the top 4-6 of the ACC combined with the Big 12 would be a very formidable conference in both football and basketball and would probably command close to B1G and SEC money on the next contract.
But how do you do that and convince those 4-6 programs to come to the Big 12 rather than accept their invite into P2? Pay their exits fees and sell them on the new media deal closing the gap substantiallyIt’s gotta be what some of the money is to be used for. There’s not enough cache in the current teams to drive huge value for thr next contract IMO.
I think that’s the story. Will it stick? Your concern is legit.But how do you do that and convince those 4-6 programs to come to the Big 12 rather than accept their invite into P2? Pay their exits fees and sell them on the new media deal closing the gap substantially
I don't think throwing cash at them will bring UNC, Clemson or FSU unless there's no P2 interest. I do think it may help lure programs like Miami, NCSU and Louisville.But how do you do that and convince those 4-6 programs to come to the Big 12 rather than accept their invite into P2? Pay their exits fees and sell them on the new media deal closing the gap substantially
I think it obviously depends on whatever the P2 offers are. Will those conferences help with exit fees? With they get full shares of media rights in those conferences right away?I don't think throwing cash at them will bring UNC, Clemson or FSU unless there's no P2 interest. I do think it may help lure programs like Miami, NCSU and Louisville.
Well if they are taking PE money as others have stated it's to raise the valuation for the next media rights. So when you take capital you have a specific investment thesis on how you are going to utilize it for maximum return. It isn't, I hope, going into general funds.
My pitch deck is: what drives eye balls? Winning and dominating, and markee players. What's changed in the market creating opportunity? Paying players. How are many markets won? By being the first to maximally capitalize on changing market conditions. Action plan: How do you dominate quickly? Spend $1B 100% on player acquisition, and do it quickly. Blow the market up, dominate , then redo your media rights.
I'll take my cut in Bitcoin please.
Miami/ NCSU/ Louisville/ Va Tech is my favorite (realistic) Big XII expansion plan.I don't think throwing cash at them will bring UNC, Clemson or FSU unless there's no P2 interest. I do think it may help lure programs like Miami, NCSU and Louisville.
I understand. I hate it, but I understand.Miami/ NCSU/ Louisville/ Va Tech is my favorite (realistic) Big XII expansion plan.
If UNC, FSU, and Clemson leave the ACC, would you rather VT stay in the ACC instead?I understand. I hate it, but I understand.
No, I wouldn't want VT playing in an irrelevant ACC.If UNC, FSU, and Clemson leave the ACC, would you rather VT stay in the ACC instead?
I think you're seeing it slightly wrong. "Purchased talent" /= Clemson or FSU (although could be part of the value increase plan).I hear you. Purchased talent could be Clemson and/ir FSU as value drivers in front of next contract.
I’m not sure about a near-term secondary buyer.
No doubt this equity holder will get preferences on payout.
I like the deal. Just trying to understand more about mechanics.
What?!?Faced with those options, I'd rather see Tech move down into FCS or whatever the new equivalent will be.
The problem is that everybody has $22m to work with for paying players every year and even if the PE money can be distributed to individual collectives in the B12, the B1G and SEC programs have the money to match. I don’t see the PE value prop being about on field talent acquisition.I think you're seeing it slightly wrong. "Purchased talent" /= Clemson or FSU (although could be part of the value increase plan).
What I mean is quite literally purchased talent. As in on field (and to lesser extent court) talent. If the B12 is paying their rosters 2x what the B1G & SEC do, then the B12 will presumably dominate the cfp for then next 4-5 years.
He doesnt want to see his team play in an irrelevant ACC but he’s cool with them dropping to FCS… because that’s super relevantWhat?!?
I would rather see a team I root for competing at a level where they had the resources and commitment to compete for championships than my team being a perpetual doormat at a higher level.He doesnt want to see his team play in an irrelevant ACC but he’s cool with them dropping to FCS… because that’s super relevant