Sir Larry Scott.. (P12 considering buying out Larry Scott)

[ScottyBuff]

I started a spread sheet but it appears most articles for each year and prior to 2015 have been deleted from the web.

	Big 12	Pac 12
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015	$23.3 million	$25.1 million
2016	$28.9 million	$28.7 million	http://landgrantgauntlet.com/2017/0...ibution-smashes-acc-pac-12-payouts/[/TD][/TR]
2017	$34.8 million	$30.9 million	https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/co...of365-million-spring-meetings-close[/TD][/TR]
2018
2019

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Always go to the "source":

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941459048

You can look for each conference's historical 990 form on this site.

Part VIII (usually page 9) lines 2a thru 2g list the "Program Service Revenue". Not every conference reports it the same but it should be there in total with some breakdown of TV revenue, bowl revenue, etc.

Part IX (page 10) line 1: "Grants and other assistance" is the distribution to member schools in total. Later on, there should be an "Additional Data" page filed with reference Schedule A, Part 1, Line 11g that details the actuals per member school.

The only things that would not be included in the above would be things like the "Tier 3" rights that schools in the Big 12 did not sign over to the conference (Grant in Rights Agreements) and other licensing deals that schools have signed individually (like UCLA's deal with IMG) . Those you would have to dig up articles, interviews, etc. to build historical information on; for some schools you might be able to find their "Form 990" for the Athletic Department if it is organized separately from the university itself.

https://247sports.com/college/west-...and-Specifically-Boren-on-Oklahomas-71284036/
https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/pos...ier-revenue-could-provide-a-big-12-safety-net

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Always go to the "source":

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/941459048

You can look for each conference's historical 990 form on this site.

Part VIII (usually page 9) lines 2a thru 2g list the "Program Service Revenue". Not every conference reports it the same but it should be there in total with some breakdown of TV revenue, bowl revenue, etc.

Part IX (page 10) line 1: "Grants and other assistance" is the distribution to member schools in total. Later on, there should be an "Additional Data" page filed with reference Schedule A, Part 1, Line 11g that details the actuals per member school.

https://247sports.com/college/west-...and-Specifically-Boren-on-Oklahomas-71284036/
https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/pos...ier-revenue-could-provide-a-big-12-safety-net

Thanks. On this part;

The only things that would not be included in the above would be things like the "Tier 3" rights that schools in the Big 12 did not sign over to the conference (Grant in Rights Agreements) and other licensing deals that schools have signed individually (like UCLA's deal with IMG) . Those you would have to dig up articles, interviews, etc. to build historical information on; for some schools you might be able to find their "Form 990" for the Athletic Department if it is organized separately from the university itself.

I agree but I also dont think those are germane since it's not the conference thats facilitating that revenue stream. TV, Licensing, bowls are what Im focused on (revenue returned to members by conference)

 

[ScottyBuff]

Thanks. On this part;



I agree but I also dont think those are germane since it's not the conference thats facilitating that revenue stream. TV, Licensing, bowls are what Im focused on (revenue returned to members by conference)

But the Pac-12 members can elect to have Pac-12 "Newco" handle those multimedia rights that can be substantial revenue stream (millions and even tens of millions per year) so I do think it is germane to the conversation.

IMG, Learfield, and others also compete in that space.

The article referenced on UCLA describes that the school choose IMG over signing with Pac-12 Newco for those rights and other schools were under consideration.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

But the Pac-12 members can elect to have Pac-12 "Newco" handle those multimedia rights that can be substantial revenue stream (millions and even tens of millions per year) so I do think it is germane to the conversation.

IMG, Learfield, and others also compete in that space.

The article referenced on UCLA describes that the school choose IMG over signing with Pac-12 Newco for those rights and other schools were under consideration.

Yes its real money and a real deal. But its not a deal by Larry Scott. My thinking is around the idea of what does the conference apparatus do for its members revenue wise? The BIG12 conference office is not responsible for the Longhorn Network which is significant revenue for UT. The LHNs existence speaks to the value of the franchise UT football. There is never gonna be an ESPN negotiated Iowa State network in my lifetime, for example. Thats why i dont want to count deals outside the conference in a thread thats judging conference leadership by a number value.

 

[skibum]

Yes its real money and a real deal. But its not a deal by Larry Scott. My thinking is around the idea of what does the conference apparatus do for its members revenue wise? The BIG12 conference office is not responsible for the Longhorn Network which is significant revenue for UT. The LHNs existence speaks to the value of the franchise UT football. There is never gonna be an ESPN negotiated Iowa State network in my lifetime, for example. Thats why i dont want to count deals outside the conference in a thread thats judging conference leadership by a number value.

Yes, but there may be a converse of that in the fact that you don't want to compare apples and oranges roses and tortillas.

If you give one vendor two product lines to sell, and you give the other vendor three product lines to sell, it's hard to say the second vendor is doing a better a job because they have higher sales (although you could say they are doing a worse job if their sales are lower).

You can either add in the revenue from the third product line to the first vendor (i.e. add the tier 3 rights revenues to the B12 numbers), or subtract them from the second vendor (i.e. figure out a way to assign a value to the tier 3 rights in the P12 and subtract that from the conference distributions). At least then you're somewhat close to a fair comparison.

But even then, you're only looking at cash flows - the big overarching question is the same as it was on day one: what is the conference's (and each individual school's share) equity in the P12 network worth?

Depending on how the current equity offering goes, we'll finally get some market indication of what that equity is worth. If it goes well, I think the schools will be quite pleased with Larry Scott's performance. If it ends badly, well - I think he'll be pushed out before his contract expires.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Yes, but there may be a converse of that in the fact that you don't want to compare apples and oranges roses and tortillas.

If you give one vendor two product lines to sell, and you give the other vendor three product lines to sell, it's hard to say the second vendor is doing a better a job because they have higher sales (although you could say they are doing a worse job if their sales are lower).

You can either add in the revenue from the third product line to the first vendor (i.e. add the tier 3 rights revenues to the B12 numbers), or subtract them from the second vendor (i.e. figure out a way to assign a value to the tier 3 rights in the P12 and subtract that from the conference distributions). At least then you're somewhat close to a fair comparison.

But even then, you're only looking at cash flows - the big overarching question is the same as it was on day one: what is the conference's (and each individual school's share) equity in the P12 network worth?

Depending on how the current equity offering goes, we'll finally get some market indication of what that equity is worth. If it goes well, I think the schools will be quite pleased with Larry Scott's performance. If it ends badly, well - I think he'll be pushed out before his contract expires.

Im not entirely sure we are gonna like the answer to that value question. We lack the fan enthusiasm and population density to compete with B1G or SEC ratings wise and the money will be tied to that. I expect the ACC to climb up there too eventually. A few BIG12 schools have those enthusiasm and population metrics too.

The private equity stake seems to be an effort at a strengthened negotiating position (or a LS added complication) and ultimately an effort at unlocking shareholder value. I see that as the P12N assett is up for sale. If we find a buyer for the P12N id think the T3 rights will most likely be included. Why would anyone buy it otherwise? So were probably not going to know what the schools individual T3 rights are worth. No Trojan Network just yet.

As for LS I've said before i think its time for him to go. I thank him for prying us out of that craptacular Texas10 conference. He gambled on the P12N and was wrong. I think he also left the current rights deal’s length a little too long too. If he stays and things stay about the same you can thank the member presidents who probably have a different vision than the fans do.

 

[onealcd]

Love Wilner but I think he is missing the point right now. First and foremost the pac needs to figure out how to get better ratings out of the current TV market. Once that is solved you can move on to sacrificing attendance for ratings and east coast viewers. 9 am starts would absolutely suck balls and I can guarantee you Colorado and Utah would get hosed the most out of all the teams.

 

[hokiehead]

Love Wilner but I think he is missing the point right now. First and foremost the pac needs to figure out how to get better ratings out of the current TV market. Once that is solved you can move on to sacrificing attendance for ratings and east coast viewers. 9 am starts would absolutely suck balls and I can guarantee you Colorado and Utah would get hosed the most out of all the teams.

I don't know man.

My first year in CO, I attended an AFA game with a 10AM kickoff and thought it was awesome. We were done by 1PM and had the entire afternoon and evening free (I think we hit Garden of the Gods). 9AM kicks would be great for families (Utah, to your point) and those who don't want to lose the entire day to a football game (culture fit with outdoor-loving Pac12 demographic). It would suck for those who are used to getting shítfaced drunk at the tailgate and then passing out after the game.

but then, I like 8PM kickoffs for the same reason of keeping my day free -- although they still allow for getting shítfaced drunk by kickoff and passing out after the game.

 

[WarBuff]

Love Wilner but I think he is missing the point right now. First and foremost the pac needs to figure out how to get better ratings out of the current TV market. Once that is solved you can move on to sacrificing attendance for ratings and east coast viewers. 9 am starts would absolutely suck balls and I can guarantee you Colorado and Utah would get hosed the most out of all the teams.

Time is not as important as attractiveness of the competition. I will watch some match ups gradualness of time, and avoid others regardless of time. The PAC12 needs to up it's on the field product and the time slots will be less of an issue.

 

[onealcd]

I don't know man.

My first year in CO, I attended an AFA game with a 10AM kickoff and thought it was awesome. We were done by 1PM and had the entire afternoon and evening free (I think we hit Garden of the Gods). 9AM kicks would be great for families (Utah, to your point) and those who don't want to lose the entire day to a football game (culture fit with outdoor-loving Pac12 demographic). It would suck for those who are used to getting shítfaced drunk at the tailgate and then passing out after the game.

but then, I like 8PM kickoffs for the same reason of keeping my day free -- although they still allow for getting shítfaced drunk by kickoff and passing out after the game.

Yeah I went to an Air Force game at 9 am mountain against navy and it was awesome but to think that boulder can match that fan base for those events is crazy. A 9am game in LA or the Bay Area would be a disaster.

 

[Duff Man]

The problem with that early time slot is it eventually comes into direct competition with the early Big 10 timeslot.

 

[onealcd]

Time is not as important as attractiveness of the competition. I will watch some match ups gradualness of time, and avoid others regardless of time. The PAC12 needs to up it's on the field product and the time slots will be less of an issue.

Time is very important and the pac 12 has absolutely no issue scheduling home and homes with other big time programs, go look at the future schedule. These cities in the pac 12 market don’t need any more excuses not to go to the game and scheduling them that early would turn them off even more. These fan bases are dramatic, just look at CU attendance if there is even a little bit of rain forecasted or an early game.

Upping the product on the field is definitely important, I’m not arguing that. But as of right now the conference has enough attendance issues and if you amplified those recruiting would suffer more. Imagine and blue chip recruit going to a 9 am game at UCLA with almost no one there and then going to a game the next week at Oklahoma, that is going to hurt.

 

[onealcd]

The problem with that early time slot is it eventually comes into direct competition with the early Big 10 timeslot.

And direct conflict with gameday which is a highly rated show for all fans.

 

[MtnBuff]

The problem with that early time slot is it eventually comes into direct competition with the early Big 10 timeslot.

And at least one prominent SEC team playing along with ACC games.

As others have mentioned the solution to the PAC12 getting attention is to have some teams playing well enough to deserve attention.

 

[patebuff]

Wow. Maybe the Pac12 should just get better at football and they can pick whatever the hell times they want.

 

[onealcd]

 

[Darth Snow]

Well, that's nice if true.

 

[skibum]

That's a $5 Billion , with a "b," valuation.

If true, it's going to be hard to criticize Larry Scott: he's delivering serious shareholder value.

 

[Buffnik]

That's a $5 Billion , with a "b," valuation.

If true, it's going to be hard to criticize Larry Scott: he's delivering serious shareholder value.

The model of owning content and expanding to 12 (or more) was very strong.

The network model with regional channels, Olympic sport emphasis and having a bloated, inefficient network & conference org that doesn’t return profits to members has been tragic.

 

[skibum]

The model of owning content and expanding to 12 (or more) was very strong.

The network model with regional channels, Olympic sport emphasis and having a bloated, inefficient network & conference org that doesn’t return profits to members has been tragic.

You can always criticize, but it's hard to be really, strongly critical of someone who has added $384 million in market validated value to your balance sheet, plus $57 million in cash, plus $20-$30 million/year in cash.

Basically, ignore everything but the bottom line. If this deal gets done at these terms, he has delivered:

1. Annual cash distributions that were ahead of the game for a few years, but have slipped behind. Regardless, they're still substantial.
2. A one-time cash distribution of $57 million
3. A 1/12th ownership share of an enterprise that was worth $0 when started, and is now worth $5 billion. (Roughly $385 million in value)

You add those three things up, and you get a total $ benefit that is at least equal to, and probably greater than any other P5 conference has delivered over the same frame. Given that he started with a conference that was seriously lagging behind, and that has had the premier revenue producing sports **** the bed the last two years, that's a pretty darn good performance.

It pisses me off that I'm defending him, but money talks.

 

[Duff Man]

Calling the yearly distributions "substantial" ignores all context.

 

[onealcd]

Need an equity partner that can help leverage the distributors, streamline network production and get this thing ready for the next tv deal. I definitely worry about Scott being able to deliver that but with the school presidents and athletic directors more involved there is hope.

 

[skibum]

Calling the yearly distributions "substantial" ignores all context.

How about "meaningful?"

The point is that they are not zero, and you can't just ignore them. They're not a rounding error.

Yes, they were lower than (some) peers, but those peers are also *not* getting #s 2 & 3 on my list.

Note: all of this assumes that Scott manages to close this round of financing at terms similar to what is being talked about.

I think we're all from Missouri when it comes to that.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Need an equity partner that can help leverage the distributors, streamline network production and get this thing ready for the next tv deal. I definitely worry about Scott being able to deliver that but with the school presidents and athletic directors more involved there is hope.

I'm hopeful that this is situation where the Presidents and ADs learned their lesson the first time around and have put their collective brain power together to truly understand what is needed for the long term health of the network and conference.

 

[onealcd]

Calling the yearly distributions "substantial" ignores all context.

It’s ****ty to think about how screwed we were by going first too. Imagine if we went last and the networks signed these deals before hand where they gave a bunch of money to the big ten and sec. then the pac 12 comes in and says hey we understand the night games are important and we are the logical conference to be put in those slots but we are sacrificing exposure and fans to do this so we are going to need more money to do so. Instead Scott thought he got a good deal because he had no idea what the market was going to give those other two and now we don’t have as much leverage because the ratings on those late games are so much lower.

 

[patebuff]

What does this in turn give each School in yearly return (money)? That's all that matters here.

 

[Buffnik]

How about "meaningful?"

The point is that they are not zero, and you can't just ignore them. They're not a rounding error.

Yes, they were lower than (some) peers, but those peers are also *not* getting #s 2 & 3 on my list.

Note: all of this assumes that Scott manages to close this round of financing at terms similar to what is being talked about.

I think we're all from Missouri when it comes to that.

The context is the timing and how content was valued in this era.

If I overpay for a home and over-improve with choices that limit the market, was I a wise home owner just because my home’s value went up 50% during a time when the values of my neighbors’ homes doubled?

 

[Not Sure]

$60MM+/- per institution. That pays for a lot of stadium upgrades and we would keep a majority interest in the network.

Let’s hope that isn’t a false flag and that there’s some truth behind it.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

$60MM+/- per institution. That pays for a lot of stadium upgrades and we would keep a majority interest in the network.

Let’s hope that isn’t a false flag and that there’s some truth behind it.

I can’t possibly imagine $750m for 15% equity stake gets divvied out fully to each school.

 

[Buffnik]

The best part of bringing in investors is that they will give exactly zero ****s about a tv network serving a social agenda. They will have zero tolerance for bloated operating expenses and salaries. They will be about bottom line profits - which is what benefits CU over the long-term and is much more important than a onetime windfall from the sale of equity.

So, what valuation they sell at is very much secondary to me. Important part is that we’re bringing in a loud voice for the profit motive.