Tennessee ranked most profitable SEC football program

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I'm going to just keep reposting this until dip**** gets it.

"Eventually some of the hicks on this board will learn to differentiate between AD as a whole and Football Program"

Exactly. $69 million is just what's left over after they deduct what they define as football expenses from what they define as football revenue. It's pretty obvious that if there is $200,000,000 in debt that the interest expense is not included in "football expense". The athletic department's bottom line is $12-13,000,000 NI. That is probably before paying down the $200,000,000 debt... therefore the change in the reserve fund is going to be WAY less than $69mm.

 

[emzeeee]

Exactly. $69 million is just what's left over after they deduct what they define as football expenses from what they define as football revenue. It's pretty obvious that if there is $200,000,000 in debt that the interest expense is not included in "football expense". The athletic department's bottom line is $12-13,000,000 NI. That is probably before paying down the $200,000,000 debt... therefore the change in the reserve fund is going to be WAY less than $69mm.

It's going to be lower now, but in 2013 the AD was paying $21,000,000 (a year) in debt service. $13,000,000 of which coming from the budget (the rest from donations).

The reserve has gone from ~$2,000,000 to ~$10,000,000.

We'll continue to stop increasing debt if we keep up our trend of hanging on to coaches for a bit. The number of buyouts we've had running concurrently has been staggering.

 

[I40flyer]

Exactly. $69 million is just what's left over after they deduct what they define as football expenses from what they define as football revenue. It's pretty obvious that if there is $200,000,000 in debt that the interest expense is not included in "football expense". The athletic department's bottom line is $12-13,000,000 NI. That is probably before paying down the $200,000,000 debt... therefore the change in the reserve fund is going to be WAY less than $69mm.

Actually if you read my post, you'd know that, the pay down of the debt (including debt service) AND/OR an increase in the reserve fund would need to be 69 million dollars. of the 200,000,000.00+million dollar debt, while some it is football related (stadium improvements/skyboxs etc) not all (by no means) is football related, however; plenty of it is. In order to call a profit on one side, you'd have to have a clear breakdown of those expenses and debts- that are clearly football generated. Again, some di))psh)t hicks, have a problem understanding, in order to declare profit, you must Know your expenses.

 

[I40flyer]

It's going to be lower now, but in 2013 the AD was paying $21,000,000 (a year) in debt service. $13,000,000 of which coming from the budget (the rest from donations).

The reserve has gone from ~$2,000,000 to ~$10,000,000.

We'll continue to stop increasing debt if we keep up our trend of hanging on to coaches for a bit. The number of buyouts we've had running concurrently has been staggering.

WOW! 2013 are you kidding me? It sounds like you're having trouble finding the figures for 2014 and this year, am I correct? If I'm correct, then you have no idea what the expenses were for 2014-2015, if you don't and yet, you are declaring profits, you should go back and take a econ course. Without knowing your costs (expenses) you can not declare any revenue a profit. I know some dipsh99t hicks do, but they are idiots.:hi:

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

UT's fiscal year is 7/1 thru 6/30, so "this year" is probably 2016.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

What I would like to know are the details of the football revenue of $94mm. Are donations included? Donations only designated for football expenses? Donations given to UT for ANY purpose if they are linked to seating priority?

I'd also like to know where the debt payment is relative to the $13mm athletic department's bottom line. If the balance is $200mm then the interest alone should be $10mm +\-. Is the principle portion of the loan payments included above or below the $13mm line?

I would assume that the interest on the $200mm is included in the unallocated expenses of the AD... part of the $54.175mm or so. But if ticket revenue is included in the football revenue, the interest related to the football CapX should be included in the football expenses. I doubt that it is though ($24mm for salaries, Dooley's severance, travel, tuition, medical, meals, etc doesn't leave much to cover interest expense).

 

[SaintLouisVol]

. . if ticket revenue is included in the football revenue, the interest related to the football CapX should be included in the football expenses. I doubt that it is though ($24mm for salaries, Dooley's severance, travel, tuition, medical, meals, etc doesn't leave much to cover interest expense).

I'd bet that it is not. Neyland Stadium is not exclusively used for Tennessee Football, and ticket revenues are not exclusively associated with Neyland. For example, what of the ticket revenues associated with this season's game in Nashville?

The accounting, while perhaps a bit less meaningful, is cleaner if you don't attempt to allocate certain expenses to the subdivisions of the AD. It's probably best. The more allocation, the more easily they can manipulate the numbers to support a particular narrative.

FWIW, people are making way too much of this -- including the reporter who produced the story triggering this thread.

You'd see a very similar situation in at least 50-60 D1 schools in the country.

 

[emzeeee]

WOW! 2013 are you kidding me? It sounds like you're having trouble finding the figures for 2014 and this year, am I correct? If I'm correct, then you have no idea what the expenses were for 2014-2015, if you don't and yet, you are declaring profits, you should go back and take a econ course. Without knowing your costs (expenses) you can not declare any revenue a profit. I know some dipsh99t hicks do, but they are idiots.:hi:

Are you kidding me?

I'm just citing an article from 2013 since that debt payment wasn't going to change any time soon... as well as the information the US Department of Education has on the 2014 revenues/expenses for UT instead of blowing smoke out of my ass like yourself. See p2 of this thread for more detailed information.

Also, I'm not declaring anything.

 

[I40flyer]

The 24 million dollars in football expenses just does not add up, for me anyway. The majority of the debt service is for the stadium, at least 10,000,000.00 dollars a year, the cost of the coaching staff is around 10,000,000.00 year in salary, cost of scholarships(books, tuition, fees, housing, meals), cost of equipment, cost of team travel(hotels, meals, bus/plane etc.), cost of offices for coaching staff, cost of offices for trainers/equipment techs, cost of field maintenance (men, machines, seeds etc. etc.), cost of band scholarships (amount prorated to football) and the list can go on and on. Recruiting trips, and all the costs involved in recruiting. Also come to mind. If you were running a business, you'd better have these and all other expenses covered. I don't think 24 million does the trick.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I'd bet that it is not. Neyland Stadium is not exclusively used for Tennessee Football, and ticket revenues are not exclusively associated with Neyland. For example, what of the ticket revenues associated with this season's game in Nashville?

The accounting, while perhaps a bit less meaningful, is cleaner if you don't attempt to allocate certain expenses to the subdivisions of the AD. It's probably best. The more allocation, the more easily they can manipulate the numbers to support a particular narrative.

FWIW, people are making way too much of this -- including the reporter who produced the story triggering this thread.

You'd see a very similar situation in at least 50-60 D1 schools in the country.

I would expect that all ticket revenue, whether for away games or games at Neyland, is included in the $94mm of football revenue. Travel for the team is certainly included in the $24mm of football expenses. But... I wouldn't be surprised if the travel/attendance costs of the official party to away games and bowl games are not included in the $54mm of unallocated athletic department expenses.

I disagree that Neyland is used for things other than football in any material way. Anthropology is in the basement, but the costs associated with that infrastructure was written off of the books long ago. I'm sure that some of the space such as the skyboxes and the rooms under the north stands are occasionally used for a reception now and then, but the stadium is there for football. Allocating any of the stadium costs, except for immaterial amounts, to expenses outside of football is creative accounting. The Vol Shop around gate 20 should be allocated a small, reasonable amount... but it should be mice nuts relative to the debt on the stadium.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

The 24 million dollars in football expenses just does not add up, for me anyway. The majority of the debt service is for the stadium, at least 10,000,000.00 dollars a year, the cost of the coaching staff is around 10,000,000.00 year in salary, cost of scholarships(books, tuition, fees, housing, meals), cost of equipment, cost of team travel(hotels, meals, bus/plane etc.), cost of offices for coaching staff, cost of offices for trainers/equipment techs, cost of field maintenance (men, machines, seeds etc. etc.), cost of band scholarships (amount prorated to football) and the list can go on and on. Recruiting trips, and all the costs involved in recruiting. Also come to mind. If you were running a business, you'd better have these and all other expenses covered. I don't think 24 million does the trick.

IMO interest on the debt is probably included in the $54mm of AD expenses not allocated to a sport. I'd like to know if the retirement of the debt (principle portion of payments) is included in the AD's $13mm bottom line. In a For Profit Inc/Stmt it is certainly excluded. I'm not familiar with how a large, governmental Not For Profit such as UT records transfers to other funds. I would think that transfers to pay down the debt balance are below the $13mm line... but then again it could be included in the $54mm.

 

[I40flyer]

For me, the bottom line is, "Creative accounting" at its very best is associated with our program. What is called a profit here, wouldn't pass muster in a business, especially if you were trying to sell stock based on your great "Profit" from last year. In fact, I believe you'd end up in another place that costs the govt. money to run. The skyboxes cost us seats (revenue), as they took up more space, the revenue they bring in, should have cost in revenue of seats lost subtracted in order to determine they actual profitability, and the list goes on. It's amazing how a profit can be declared for this year, without the expenses and costs being known (declared).

 

[I40flyer]

IMO interest on the debt is probably included in the $54mm of AD expenses not allocated to a sport. I'd like to know if the retirement of the debt (principle portion of payments) is included in the AD's $13mm bottom line. In a For Profit Inc/Stmt it is certainly excluded. I'm not familiar with how a large, governmental Not For Profit such as UT records transfers to other funds. I would think that transfers to pay down the debt balance are below the $13mm line... but then again it could be included in the $54mm.

Sir, I believe you are correct, however; if you bring this up, some idiot will accuse you of not knowing the difference between the AD and the Football program!!!

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Funny how they are so slow to give out the financials. The tech company Cisco can close their books in just a few hours after the end of any period including every bit of detail in drill down financials. But UT is the government.

 

[I40flyer]

Funny how they are so slow to give out the financials. The tech company Cisco can close their books in just a few hours after the end of any period including every bit of detail in drill down financials. But UT is the government.

Govt. accounting has run the fed govt. up 19trillion and counting debt-plus all the not accounted for debts, it's staggering. But only the govt., in this case UT Football, can "hide" massive amounts of debt, by having the AD "assume" responsibility. If any business can transfer their debt, and the service thereof, to another entity, and act as if it did not exist. Their profitability would skyrocket on day one. There are a few on this very board that do not understand: carrying of that debt is an expense, just like paying a coach or buying a helmet! They are easily confused by co-mingling of funds/debt/debt service, thus they are easily lead to believe the "profit" profile of the program. From my perspective, when you are 100,000,000.00 (s)dollars in debt, you do not raise salaries, or waste money, but rather, pay down the debt, the sooner the better. The rate of interest(we're paying) isn't easily found, but I'd be surprised if it were a locked rate. My guess is it is fixed at an amount at or above prime. As interest rates (latest fed statement) will be increasing in the near future, the payments may actually increase in the future, even as the principle decreases!

 

[tenninohio]

This is a little confusing. If true, why are our reserves still so incredibly low? Are we reinvesting those profits back into capital improvements/projects? Would like to see the list of where that $43m profit has been disbursed.

Yet, UT has one of the highest hikes in student tuition. Washington Post had excellent article about athletic departments running in the red, at a loss, and UT was high up on that list.

so, really hard for the average fan to understand various reports.