$58M head to WSU if Scott's media holding co. plan works out...

[ttowncoug]

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2019/03/21/Colleges/Pac-12.aspx

Not clear on the details. Sounds like a "flip the network" deal.

The other part is that "new co" cash flowed $286M last year.

I'm curious on what that balance sheet looks like.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2019/03/21/Colleges/Pac-12.aspx

Not clear on the details. Sounds like a "flip the network" deal.

The other part is that "new co" cash flowed $242M last year.

I'm curious on what that balance sheet looks like.

Maybe I'm just not as smart as Larry Scott, but wasn't the whole idea of the P12N that we (the schools/ conference) would OWN all of our own rights, thus we would reap ALL of the profits?

Now Scott wants to sell equity in the conference's rights for a period of 25 years, thus giving away what I can only assume is a large share of the profits?

Maybe King Larry should take his travelling luxury show to Shark Tank and see if he can wrangle up some dollars there.

No matter what, though, King Larry walks away with a fat wallet and a built in excuse bank.

 

[Loyal Coug]

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2019/03/21/Colleges/Pac-12.aspx

Not clear on the details. Sounds like a "flip the network" deal.

The other part is that "new co" cash flowed $242M last year.

I'm curious on what that balance sheet looks like.

The article says EBITDA was $286 million. Not sure where you get your $242M.
EBITDA = Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization for you non-accountant types.

So if EBITDA was $286 million, our 1/12 of that should be $23.8 million. Not the barely $3 million we get now. What's wrong with those numbers?

Not even gonna waste my brain matter on this - sounds like complete pie in the sky BS. Like what Larry sold us the first time around.

 

[Observer11]

The article says EBITDA was $286 million. Not sure where you get your $242M.
EBITDA = Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization for you non-accountant types.

So if EBITDA was $286 million, our 1/12 of that should be $23.8 million. Not the barely $3 million we get now. What's wrong with those numbers?

Not even gonna waste my brain matter on this - sounds like complete pie in the sky BS. Like what Larry sold us the first time around.

It was a typo. It's really EBITDAL

L being "Larry".

He blew the other $256 million on jets, luxury suites, probably some high end escorts.....

So, yeah, $3M is about right.

 

[dgibbons]

The article says EBITDA was $286 million. Not sure where you get your $242M.
EBITDA = Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization for you non-accountant types.

So if EBITDA was $286 million, our 1/12 of that should be $23.8 million. Not the barely $3 million we get now. What's wrong with those numbers?

Not even gonna waste my brain matter on this - sounds like complete pie in the sky BS. Like what Larry sold us the first time around.

The description in the article is odd. “Newco” doesn’t exist, but it’s EBITDA was $286 million last year. I assume that number is just the profit from the PAC-12’s operations that would be transferred to Newco. So, essentially all the PAC-12 media rights (the Fox/ESPN contract, PAC-12 networks, NCAA distributions, etc.).

 

[dgibbons]

Maybe I'm just not as smart as Larry Scott, but wasn't the whole idea of the P12N that we (the schools/ conference) would OWN all of our own rights, thus we would reap ALL of the profits?

Now Scott wants to sell equity in the conference's rights for a period of 25 years, thus giving away what I can only assume is a large share of the profits?

Maybe King Larry should take his travelling luxury show to Shark Tank and see if he can wrangle up some dollars there.

No matter what, though, King Larry walks away with a fat wallet and a built in excuse bank.

It’s a public acknowledgement that Larry’s model was wrong. I linked an article last week from Wilner (sorry for the Loyal impression). There is a new chair of the PAC-12 board of directors (DiStefano from CU) various subcommittees have been formed and the ADs are now involved. The “culture” has changed. Larry’s let them eat cake attitude ain’t going to fly.

 

[dgibbons]

Although this is a bid book, the terms are still assinine. Twenty-five years? All up front?

 

[BiggsCoug]

25 year deal??? That’s gonna end badly. If he inks this deal fire him and every president too.

 

[dgibbons]

25 year deal??? That’s gonna end badly. If he inks this deal fire him and every president too.

This is like your neighbors putting their house up for sale for two times market value. It’s a nonstarter.

 

[Observer11]

25 years isn't going to happen. This is smoke and mirrors from Larry to get the microscope off his own spending habit.

Equity guys aren't coming in for 25 years. No way.

 

[YakiCoug]

25 years isn't going to happen. This is smoke and mirrors from Larry to get the microscope off his own spending habit.

Equity guys aren't coming in for 25 years. No way.

Larry should get into real estate, say, New York, cozy up to a foreign bank that launders Russian mafia money, and then run for president.

 

[Loyal Coug]

It’s a public acknowledgement that Larry’s model was wrong. I linked an article last week from Wilner (sorry for the Loyal impression). There is a new chair of the PAC-12 board of directors (DiStefano from CU) various subcommittees have been formed and the ADs are now involved. The “culture” has changed. Larry’s let them eat cake attitude ain’t going to fly.

No need to apologize.

Here's your Wilner link again, as well as Canzano's latest blast at Scott. Too bad a couple of these Scott-loving presidents aren't leaving for another year+.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/21/letter-58/

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2...wont-go-away-until-the-commissioner-does.html

 

[Observer11]

I just can't imagine PE guys coming in for a minority stake and no ability to monetize in, like, three years.

Maybe Larry thinks he can IPO the Pac-12 (Network or no) and give them some upside - but, honestly, would any of you put money into Pac-12 Network stock with Larry Scott as CEO?

I didn't think so.

 

[kougkurt]

I just can't imagine PE guys coming in for a minority stake and no ability to monetize in, like, three years.

Maybe Larry thinks he can IPO the Pac-12 (Network or no) and give them some upside - but, honestly, would any of you put money into Pac-12 Network stock with Larry Scott as CEO?

I didn't think so.

Yes. Short

 

[wazzubruce]

Scott is a rip-off, con-man. He does not care what happens to the PAC-12 or any school in the conference. He ONLY cares about lining his own pockets and keeping his plush job and the perks that come with it.

 

[ttowncoug]

Loyal, typo, fixed.

Dgibb, this has to include all existing media rights He's not carving out the Pac-12 networks.

I personally think the conversation needs to be strictly around the P-12 network. The media rights should be 100% owned by the Pac-12.

The network should be co-owned so it's more economically viable. I think being apart of ESPN or FOX's distribution channels, even as we move into the cord cutting phase, make sense. Someone in New England is not likely to buy the Pac-12 streaming network. If they were bundled into the college sports package, different topic. I might want to tune into a late night pac-12 networks game.

Also, the Pac-12's content is not selling. Transform is to the Pacific Sports network and put some other things on there. I'm sure they could get some MLS games on there, MLB and NBA regional showings. Getting more eyes on the screen to show case your Pac-12 teams, and events, makes sense.

 

[dgibbons]

Loyal, typo, fixed.

Dgibb, this has to include all existing media rights He's not carving out the Pac-12 networks.

I personally think the conversation needs to be strictly around the P-12 network. The media rights should be 100% owned by the Pac-12.

The network should be co-owned so it's more economically viable. I think being apart of ESPN or FOX's distribution channels, even as we move into the cord cutting phase, make sense. Someone in New England is not likely to buy the Pac-12 streaming network. If they were bundled into the college sports package, different topic. I might want to tune into a late night pac-12 networks game.

Also, the Pac-12's content is not selling. Transform is to the Pacific Sports network and put some other things on there. I'm sure they could get some MLS games on there, MLB and NBA regional showings. Getting more eyes on the screen to show case your Pac-12 teams, and events, makes sense.

Right, it would have to include NCAA distributions as well. Bowl payouts too.

Basically it’s pooling all assets together, including the PAC-12 Networks. The investor is not going to be a network, but this would not necessarily prevent a broadcast partner/network or whatever you want to call them from taking a majority interest in the total package when the current Fox/ESPN contract ends in 2023 or 2024.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Loyal, typo, fixed.

Dgibb, this has to include all existing media rights He's not carving out the Pac-12 networks.

I personally think the conversation needs to be strictly around the P-12 network. The media rights should be 100% owned by the Pac-12.

The network should be co-owned so it's more economically viable. I think being apart of ESPN or FOX's distribution channels, even as we move into the cord cutting phase, make sense. Someone in New England is not likely to buy the Pac-12 streaming network. If they were bundled into the college sports package, different topic. I might want to tune into a late night pac-12 networks game.

Also, the Pac-12's content is not selling. Transform is to the Pacific Sports network and put some other things on there. I'm sure they could get some MLS games on there, MLB and NBA regional showings. Getting more eyes on the screen to show case your Pac-12 teams, and events, makes sense.

I was thinking of this the other night as I flipped past repeats of gymnastics and "the greatest..." on the two Pac-12 stations. I guess I think consideration needs to be given to ash canning the notion of 24/365 network, and dave all that production, etc. money. And the related costs of having those facilities in San Fran.

Let's face it - outside of FB and BB season - almost nobody is watching the channels. Maybe some of the baseball games.

 

[Coug95man2]

I was thinking of this the other night as I flipped past repeats of gymnastics and "the greatest..." on the two Pac-12 stations. I guess I think consideration needs to be given to ash canning the notion of 24/365 network, and dave all that production, etc. money. And the related costs of having those facilities in San Fran.

Let's face it - outside of FB and BB season - almost nobody is watching the channels. Maybe some of the baseball games.

I think you've touched on something. The replays aren't selling. Why? Well, could it be the 24/365 thing? I mean, how many times does the Pac 12 replay a game?! And then they expect another channel to pick it up after they've saturated the market? Kind of a bad plan, if that's what the plan was.

 

[Loyal Coug]

I think you've touched on something. The replays aren't selling. Why? Well, could it be the 24/365 thing? I mean, how many times does the Pac 12 replay a game?! And then they expect another channel to pick it up after they've saturated the market? Kind of a bad plan, if that's what the plan was.

This thread and the ESPN one beg the question, for which I think we know the answer. After all the bad press and financial shortcomings made public, Slick Larry must be under some pressure - finally.

HIs solution? Stay with his model, cut some serious costs and enhance revenue? No, let's make some big outside deal instead. Screw just conducting business properly.

I'm sure that we are screwed for years to come by leases and contracts (including Larry). But in fantasyland, we pull out of San Francisco, fire all the bums, and cut back the network to FB, BB and a nice reasonable dose of semi-interesting live programming of other sports.

Get rid of these mid-week BB games, Thursday and Friday FB games except for here and there. Games the network doesn't pick up, play them on the various regional channels at a decent time. Who cares if WSU-Colorado and Arizona-Stanford kick off at the same time?

 

[ATACFD]

Well, I've got a sure fire plan to get WSU more than 58 million. I'm buying a Powerball ticket this Wednesday. Jackpot is up to 750 million. I will donate a significant amount of this to WSU.
Honestly, even with odds at 192million to 1, I think my method has a better chance than anything Mr. Scott can pull off.

 

[Coug95man2]

This thread and the ESPN one beg the question, for which I think we know the answer. After all the bad press and financial shortcomings made public, Slick Larry must be under some pressure - finally.

HIs solution? Stay with his model, cut some serious costs and enhance revenue? No, let's make some big outside deal instead. Screw just conducting business properly.

I'm sure that we are screwed for years to come by leases and contracts (including Larry). But in fantasyland, we pull out of San Francisco, fire all the bums, and cut back the network to FB, BB and a nice reasonable dose of semi-interesting live programming of other sports.

Get rid of these mid-week BB games, Thursday and Friday FB games except for here and there. Games the network doesn't pick up, play them on the various regional channels at a decent time. Who cares if WSU-Colorado and Arizona-Stanford kick off at the same time?

Yeah, a lot of this is just that. Fantasyland. Contracts, as they are with ESPN and Fox (have no clue on any other contracts so it may be further out than this) conclude the 2023/2024 school year.

Looked into it a bit: Scott is gambling on the idea that Facebook, Amazon, etc. are going to start becoming major players in the sports/content world. Facebook is throwing a BOATLOAD of money into this. I don't think he's banking on FB buying content but driving the price up. But I just don't see it. No one goes to FB to watch content, except people popping zits or inspirational, homemade videos about keeping their heads up in the face of adversity. Amazon or Google or the Newer Apple News+ that they just released maybe. But FB ain't it. He's taking a major gamble on 2022 being a negotiation boon.

 

[ttowncoug]

Yeah, a lot of this is just that. Fantasyland. Contracts, as they are with ESPN and Fox (have no clue on any other contracts so it may be further out than this) conclude the 2023/2024 school year.

Looked into it a bit: Scott is gambling on the idea that Facebook, Amazon, etc. are going to start becoming major players in the sports/content world. Facebook is throwing a BOATLOAD of money into this. I don't think he's banking on FB buying content but driving the price up. But I just don't see it. No one goes to FB to watch content, except people popping zits or inspirational, homemade videos about keeping their heads up in the face of adversity. Amazon or Google or the Newer Apple News+ that they just released maybe. But FB ain't it. He's taking a major gamble on 2022 being a negotiation boon.

Agreed, ESPN and Fox will be the likely players controlling the programming for sports. I don't see how Facebook, Hulu or Amazon Sports are going to change how viewers get their programming. How folks watch programming (phone, cable, etc) will change. However, I believe people are going to want one or two sports platforms, hence why working and partnering with one of these folks makes sense. Also, the cross promotional aspect of an ESPN can't be understated. If Scott puts our programming on some obscure platform, that lessons our visibility to recruits, it could be the death nail in our conference from a competitive aspect.

 

[dgibbons]

Agreed, ESPN and Fox will be the likely players controlling the programming for sports. I don't see how Facebook, Hulu or Amazon Sports are going to change how viewers get their programming. How folks watch programming (phone, cable, etc) will change. However, I believe people are going to want one or two sports platforms, hence why working and partnering with one of these folks makes sense. Also, the cross promotional aspect of an ESPN can't be understated. If Scott puts our programming on some obscure platform, that lessons our visibility to recruits, it could be the death nail in our conference from a competitive aspect.

If Facebook, etc. can make it cheaper than cable or satellite TV, things might change. Of course, that's counter to big money from the TV contracts that's supposed to come rolling in.

 

[Coug95man2]

If Facebook, etc. can make it cheaper than cable or satellite TV, things might change. Of course, that's counter to big money from the TV contracts that's supposed to come rolling in.

Yeah, see I don't think he's looking at airing anything on there. He's looking at the market pressures. If more stuff becomes popular, that will put the pressure on ESPN, Fox, etc to buy at a higher cost. Look from a higher perspective. Look from the 30K level, not ground level.