Colorado, Kansas, and Utah cannot sign anything or take any money that would prevent a move to the B1G
Colorado, Kansas, and Utah cannot sign anything or take any money that would prevent a move to the B1G
PE investments usually benefit only the PE firm. They're really good at destroying what they buy to extract maximum return over a short term.
Good investment, imo. We've seen how the excitement for the football program is affecting enrollment, diversity and the community.After talking with a couple of connected folks in college athletics, a real possibility for many schools, including the CU AD, is to borrow money from its Endowment to help fund the required $20-30 mm in required payments to players.. CU has a $2+ billion Endowment. Of course, some of that Endowment is invested in fixed income. As long as the return on the on borrowed $$ yields a sufficient income stream to the Endowment, this could be a win-win. And, it could minimize or eliminate the need for private equity capital, at least in the short run.
What do you think the money will be used for?Anyone who thinks a PE infusion that, at best, gets existing members closer to the B1G/ SEC for perhaps a couple of years is somehow going to lure FSU or Clemson into a long term Big XII arrangement... Well, please let me know what you're smoking, because I'd love to try it.
LOLThis is not true. I have worked closely with private equity for 20+ years, and in the large majority of cases when a private business sells to PE, it's a great outcome for both the business owner, the employees and the PE firm's investors.
n = 4.LOL
Ive worked for three companies that PE came into and worked with a 4th. Three were founder owner and one used to be Fortune 500. The employees got mostly ****ed in all 4 situations. One went completely out of business after PE discovered the founder knew what he was doing and they didnt. One is on the ropes still taking gut punches. The other two have had 100% turnover mostly by layoffs and have changed hands a couple of times. The founders however did great.
My experience was the PE folks slashed inventory, got rid of high paid high performers and staffing depth, replacements were paid under market so we churned a lot. PE demanded cash flow increases constantly. When the customer base started shrinking they fired most of the C Suite.
MHver is a troll. He once even admitted that all his tweets are a "social experiment" to study the power of social media.
Will differ by school. Not trying to lure FSU and Clemson, that's for damn sure. That's like throwing ones at a dancer who knows if she works one club over she'd be making thousands every day. (FSU and Clemson are looking to make SEC/ B1G money long term, not for a couple years until some PE fund runs out).What do you think the money will be used for?
Oops, my bad! Thank you for replying again.I wasn't hot after you. You have the best pitch I've heard so far. In the post you quoted, I even said "I'd back it." "It" being your investment thesis. It's a good one. I'd deploy money behind it.
I was hot after the idot that wrote the sh!tty misleading article.
If you're in the valley, your frame of reference is VC, not PE. VC hold times are also getting longer. Annoyingly long - I've got a fund that is literally in year 20, and they just told me it will be 1-2 years more before they're done. Their investment period ended fifteen years ago.
OTOH, we've made a good chunk of change from them, so they kinda bought themselves a long leash with good results. Funny how that works.
Large parts of the biopharma industry have been built by PE.LOL
Ive worked for three companies that PE came into and worked with a 4th. Three were founder owner and one used to be Fortune 500. The employees got mostly ****ed in all 4 situations. One went completely out of business after PE discovered the founder knew what he was doing and they didnt. One is on the ropes still taking gut punches. The other two have had 100% turnover mostly by layoffs and have changed hands a couple of times. The founders however did great.
My experience was the PE folks slashed inventory, got rid of high paid high performers and staffing depth, replacements were paid under market so we churned a lot. PE demanded cash flow increases constantly. When the customer base started shrinking they fired most of the C Suite.
It's pretty amazing how many people interact with himMHver is a troll. He once even admitted that all his tweets are a "social experiment" to study the power of social media.