(05-05-2017 08:24 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 12:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. I think specialized networks are part of what's fueling the layoffs.

2. The damages of ESPN pulling out would be substantia, as would the loss of revenue. They aren't pulling out.

What damages? Have you read the contract?

Seminole Productions will soon undergo an additional $2 million in state-of-the-art upgrades that include two more control rooms at the Moore Athletic Center. Last summer, the department completed $3 million in renovations that have enhanced the work flow for FSU sporting events.

Funding for both projects is being paid by the Seminoles’ athletic department.

Mark Rodin, director of Seminole Productions, said ESPN wants ACC schools production ready by the fall of 2018. That will allow the company time to train FSU staff and students.
-- tallahassee.com

material reliance ...

FOR STARTERS

Just about every ACC school has sunk $5 to $10 million on preparations for the ACC Network. $7.5M (avg) X 15 schools = $112.5 million. Not to mention the $45M/year "penalty" for not launching the ACCN.

ESPN is financially committed to the ACC Network. Now, I suppose they might be able to SELL it -- but there would be a lot of TV rights which would have to go along with it, I'd think. So that's not likely to happen.

It still boils down to a simple equation for ESPN:
Launch the ACCN and split the profits with the ACC (est. $120M/year each)
or don't launch it and pay the ACC $45M/year
Net difference to ESPN: $120M -(-$45M) = $165M/year.

No way does it save them money by not launching when you consider they'd first have to make up that much money. every. single. year.

(05-05-2017 11:19 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  don't launch it and pay the ACC $45M/year

pay through the nose ...

BUT YOU PROMISED

(05-05-2017 11:11 AM)green Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:24 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 12:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. I think specialized networks are part of what's fueling the layoffs.

2. The damages of ESPN pulling out would be substantia, as would the loss of revenue. They aren't pulling out.

What damages? Have you read the contract?

Seminole Productions will soon undergo an additional $2 million in state-of-the-art upgrades that include two more control rooms at the Moore Athletic Center. Last summer, the department completed $3 million in renovations that have enhanced the work flow for FSU sporting events.

Funding for both projects is being paid by the Seminoles’ athletic department.

Mark Rodin, director of Seminole Productions, said ESPN wants ACC schools production ready by the fall of 2018. That will allow the company time to train FSU staff and students.
-- tallahassee.com

material reliance ...

FOR STARTERS

Exactly

(05-05-2017 08:24 AM)nole Wrote:  

(05-04-2017 12:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. I think specialized networks are part of what's fueling the layoffs.

2. The damages of ESPN pulling out would be substantia, as would the loss of revenue. They aren't pulling out.

What damages? Have you read the contract?

See Green's post.

Before everyone pops too many bottles, keep in mind that our future revenues have to be netted against all of these costs that we're currently encurring years ahead of time. A network is probably a good move. ESPN has the best knowledge and expertise in the world in this regard, and they're willing to bet on it, so it will probably work.

However, the benefits will 100% be overstated because everyone will ignore the costs - just like w/ the BTN, SECN, and PACN right now.

(05-05-2017 11:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before everyone pops too many bottles, keep in mind that our future revenues have to be netted against all of these costs that we're currently encurring years ahead of time. A network is probably a good move. ESPN has the best knowledge and expertise in the world in this regard, and they're willing to bet on it, so it will probably work.

However, the benefits will 100% be overstated because everyone will ignore the costs - just like w/ the BTN, SECN, and PACN right now.

So zero net profit in year one, maybe years two and three even... but by year four, look out!

In the case of the SEC, IIRC they simply took the costs out of the gross profits BEFORE the teams were paid - but in the case of the ACC, having prepaid most of the startup costs - I'm guessing they'll report huge profits in year one... even if it's not accurate to do so.

(05-05-2017 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 11:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before everyone pops too many bottles, keep in mind that our future revenues have to be netted against all of these costs that we're currently encurring years ahead of time. A network is probably a good move. ESPN has the best knowledge and expertise in the world in this regard, and they're willing to bet on it, so it will probably work.

However, the benefits will 100% be overstated because everyone will ignore the costs - just like w/ the BTN, SECN, and PACN right now.

So zero net profit in year one, maybe years two and three even... but by year four, look out!

In the case of the SEC, IIRC they simply took the costs out of the gross profits BEFORE the teams were paid - but in the case of the ACC, having prepaid most of the startup costs - I'm guessing they'll report huge profits in year one... even if it's not accurate to do so.

You're looking at it the wrong way. What if <insert ACC school here> spent $10 million building luxury suites and/or investing the money in some other way? You have to back that out that return on investment from the ACCN distributions. And that return would start generating a profit sooner, so you would have to account for timing differences as well. A dollar now is worth more than a dollar in a year or two.

Like I said, I'm sure it's a good move. It's just less good than everyone thinks.
(Just like every other conference network)

[EDIT: You also have to risk adjust the return. Nobody ever does that, which drives me nuts because the relationship between risk and return is finance 101.]

(05-05-2017 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 11:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before everyone pops too many bottles, keep in mind that our future revenues have to be netted against all of these costs that we're currently encurring years ahead of time. A network is probably a good move. ESPN has the best knowledge and expertise in the world in this regard, and they're willing to bet on it, so it will probably work.

However, the benefits will 100% be overstated because everyone will ignore the costs - just like w/ the BTN, SECN, and PACN right now.

So zero net profit in year one, maybe years two and three even... but by year four, look out!

In the case of the SEC, IIRC they simply took the costs out of the gross profits BEFORE the teams were paid - but in the case of the ACC, having prepaid most of the startup costs - I'm guessing they'll report huge profits in year one... even if it's not accurate to do so.

You are on target Mark, but some SEC schools fronted the start up and those who chose not to for internal reasons had it taken out. Either way they were cleared by the start of year 2. And since our first year payout was larger than expected we recouped that overhead in most cases that year, and in some cases certainly with a little bit more out of year two. I think the preparation ran most schools between 7 to 11 million depending on a lot things which may or may not have existed already on the campuses. But then when the majority of your schools have operating budgets of over 90 million we aren't talking about a significant portion of the overall pie. Profit vs investment wise I think that most ACC schools would recover their invest with the check for year two if it is as advertised and like the SECN. It might take part of the third year for the ACC simply because a lot of your athletic departments don't already have budgets as large as those in the SEC so it represents a slightly larger investment versus the overall budget.

(05-05-2017 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 11:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before everyone pops too many bottles, keep in mind that our future revenues have to be netted against all of these costs that we're currently encurring years ahead of time. A network is probably a good move. ESPN has the best knowledge and expertise in the world in this regard, and they're willing to bet on it, so it will probably work.

However, the benefits will 100% be overstated because everyone will ignore the costs - just like w/ the BTN, SECN, and PACN right now.

So zero net profit in year one, maybe years two and three even... but by year four, look out!

In the case of the SEC, IIRC they simply took the costs out of the gross profits BEFORE the teams were paid - but in the case of the ACC, having prepaid most of the startup costs - I'm guessing they'll report huge profits in year one... even if it's not accurate to do so.

You are on target Mark, but some SEC schools fronted the start up and those who chose not to for internal reasons had it taken out. Either way they were cleared by the start of year 2. And since our first year payout was larger than expected we recouped that overhead in most cases that year, and in some cases certainly with a little bit more out of year two. I think the preparation ran most schools between 7 to 11 million depending on a lot things which may or may not have existed already on the campuses. But then when the majority of your schools have operating budgets of over 90 million we aren't talking about a significant portion of the overall pie. Profit vs investment wise I think that most ACC schools would recover their invest with the check for year two if it is as advertised and like the SECN. It might take part of the third year for the ACC simply because a lot of your athletic departments don't already have budgets as large as those in the SEC so it represents a slightly larger investment versus the overall budget.

Well, I think there's another difference: the ACC is building the infrastructure 2 to 3 years BEFORE the launch of the ACCN, whereas I don't think that was the case with the SECN. So my point was that the ACCN will already be paid for before it ever launches (I think).

(05-05-2017 03:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 11:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before everyone pops too many bottles, keep in mind that our future revenues have to be netted against all of these costs that we're currently encurring years ahead of time. A network is probably a good move. ESPN has the best knowledge and expertise in the world in this regard, and they're willing to bet on it, so it will probably work.

However, the benefits will 100% be overstated because everyone will ignore the costs - just like w/ the BTN, SECN, and PACN right now.

So zero net profit in year one, maybe years two and three even... but by year four, look out!

In the case of the SEC, IIRC they simply took the costs out of the gross profits BEFORE the teams were paid - but in the case of the ACC, having prepaid most of the startup costs - I'm guessing they'll report huge profits in year one... even if it's not accurate to do so.

You are on target Mark, but some SEC schools fronted the start up and those who chose not to for internal reasons had it taken out. Either way they were cleared by the start of year 2. And since our first year payout was larger than expected we recouped that overhead in most cases that year, and in some cases certainly with a little bit more out of year two. I think the preparation ran most schools between 7 to 11 million depending on a lot things which may or may not have existed already on the campuses. But then when the majority of your schools have operating budgets of over 90 million we aren't talking about a significant portion of the overall pie. Profit vs investment wise I think that most ACC schools would recover their invest with the check for year two if it is as advertised and like the SECN. It might take part of the third year for the ACC simply because a lot of your athletic departments don't already have budgets as large as those in the SEC so it represents a slightly larger investment versus the overall budget.

Well, I think there's another difference: the ACC is building the infrastructure 2 to 3 years BEFORE the launch of the ACCN, whereas I don't think that was the case with the SECN. So my point was that the ACCN will already be paid for before it ever launches (I think).

Not really. We got the jump on it too, but not a 3 year jump. But Louisville's outlay is right in line with most of ours.

Anyway my point is that I basically agree with you. For those who want to recoup the overhead and want to back it out of the first year's profits, I was merely saying your profits if even remotely close to the projections should clear the overhead in 2 years. It doesn't matter when the expenses accumulated for somebody wanting to offset profits they are going to deduct it anyway. My point was that our year 1 profits covered most expenses, and by year 2 all of our schools should have cleared them. I think the timeline for the ACC will approximate that with maybe just a few going into year 3 before the overhead is cleared.

New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

Permanent crossovers?
ND- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- VT & Louisville
Syr- Louisville & Clemson
BC- Cincinnati & Virginia
UL- Pittsburgh & Syracuse
Cin- ND & BC
Miami- ND & FSU
WF- NC & Duke
FSU- Miami & GT
Clem- GT & Syracuse
VT- Virginia & Pittsburgh
NC St- NC & Duke
NC- NC St & WF
Duke- NC St & WF
Virginia- VT & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU

(05-05-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 03:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 11:54 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Before everyone pops too many bottles, keep in mind that our future revenues have to be netted against all of these costs that we're currently encurring years ahead of time. A network is probably a good move. ESPN has the best knowledge and expertise in the world in this regard, and they're willing to bet on it, so it will probably work.

However, the benefits will 100% be overstated because everyone will ignore the costs - just like w/ the BTN, SECN, and PACN right now.

So zero net profit in year one, maybe years two and three even... but by year four, look out!

In the case of the SEC, IIRC they simply took the costs out of the gross profits BEFORE the teams were paid - but in the case of the ACC, having prepaid most of the startup costs - I'm guessing they'll report huge profits in year one... even if it's not accurate to do so.

You are on target Mark, but some SEC schools fronted the start up and those who chose not to for internal reasons had it taken out. Either way they were cleared by the start of year 2. And since our first year payout was larger than expected we recouped that overhead in most cases that year, and in some cases certainly with a little bit more out of year two. I think the preparation ran most schools between 7 to 11 million depending on a lot things which may or may not have existed already on the campuses. But then when the majority of your schools have operating budgets of over 90 million we aren't talking about a significant portion of the overall pie. Profit vs investment wise I think that most ACC schools would recover their invest with the check for year two if it is as advertised and like the SECN. It might take part of the third year for the ACC simply because a lot of your athletic departments don't already have budgets as large as those in the SEC so it represents a slightly larger investment versus the overall budget.

Well, I think there's another difference: the ACC is building the infrastructure 2 to 3 years BEFORE the launch of the ACCN, whereas I don't think that was the case with the SECN. So my point was that the ACCN will already be paid for before it ever launches (I think).

Not really. We got the jump on it too, but not a 3 year jump. But Louisville's outlay is right in line with most of ours.

Anyway my point is that I basically agree with you. For those who want to recoup the overhead and want to back it out of the first year's profits, I was merely saying your profits if even remotely close to the projections should clear the overhead in 2 years. It doesn't matter when the expenses accumulated for somebody wanting to offset profits they are going to deduct it anyway. My point was that our year 1 profits covered most expenses, and by year 2 all of our schools should have cleared them. I think the timeline for the ACC will approximate that with maybe just a few going into year 3 before the overhead is cleared.

The analysis from this line of thinking understates costs.

(05-05-2017 10:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 03:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  So zero net profit in year one, maybe years two and three even... but by year four, look out!

In the case of the SEC, IIRC they simply took the costs out of the gross profits BEFORE the teams were paid - but in the case of the ACC, having prepaid most of the startup costs - I'm guessing they'll report huge profits in year one... even if it's not accurate to do so.

You are on target Mark, but some SEC schools fronted the start up and those who chose not to for internal reasons had it taken out. Either way they were cleared by the start of year 2. And since our first year payout was larger than expected we recouped that overhead in most cases that year, and in some cases certainly with a little bit more out of year two. I think the preparation ran most schools between 7 to 11 million depending on a lot things which may or may not have existed already on the campuses. But then when the majority of your schools have operating budgets of over 90 million we aren't talking about a significant portion of the overall pie. Profit vs investment wise I think that most ACC schools would recover their invest with the check for year two if it is as advertised and like the SECN. It might take part of the third year for the ACC simply because a lot of your athletic departments don't already have budgets as large as those in the SEC so it represents a slightly larger investment versus the overall budget.

Well, I think there's another difference: the ACC is building the infrastructure 2 to 3 years BEFORE the launch of the ACCN, whereas I don't think that was the case with the SECN. So my point was that the ACCN will already be paid for before it ever launches (I think).

Not really. We got the jump on it too, but not a 3 year jump. But Louisville's outlay is right in line with most of ours.

Anyway my point is that I basically agree with you. For those who want to recoup the overhead and want to back it out of the first year's profits, I was merely saying your profits if even remotely close to the projections should clear the overhead in 2 years. It doesn't matter when the expenses accumulated for somebody wanting to offset profits they are going to deduct it anyway. My point was that our year 1 profits covered most expenses, and by year 2 all of our schools should have cleared them. I think the timeline for the ACC will approximate that with maybe just a few going into year 3 before the overhead is cleared.

The analysis from this line of thinking understates costs.

The network is what, three years old now? It's now worth 4.69 Billion. Do you think what the start up costs of 7-11 million per school which were recovered within a two year period made a difference? Your fine distinction about the accounting is what we grew up calling a tempest in a teapot.

BTW by comparison the BTN is worth 1.14 billion and the PACN is worth 305 million. All of them lost subscribers this past year. The SEC lost 7 million subscribers bringing our total to 70 million by one estimation and as low as 61 million by another. But we opened last year on every streaming provider that carries sports. None of those revenues are counted in the 4.69 Billion and none of those services have been counted as new subscribers. I'm sure the same is true for the BTN and PACN, and I know they've been true for ESPN subscriptions as well.

Somehow I just don't believe that the start up costs for the ACCN will amount to a concern of any kind in 3 years or so.

(05-05-2017 10:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 03:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 02:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You are on target Mark, but some SEC schools fronted the start up and those who chose not to for internal reasons had it taken out. Either way they were cleared by the start of year 2. And since our first year payout was larger than expected we recouped that overhead in most cases that year, and in some cases certainly with a little bit more out of year two. I think the preparation ran most schools between 7 to 11 million depending on a lot things which may or may not have existed already on the campuses. But then when the majority of your schools have operating budgets of over 90 million we aren't talking about a significant portion of the overall pie. Profit vs investment wise I think that most ACC schools would recover their invest with the check for year two if it is as advertised and like the SECN. It might take part of the third year for the ACC simply because a lot of your athletic departments don't already have budgets as large as those in the SEC so it represents a slightly larger investment versus the overall budget.

Well, I think there's another difference: the ACC is building the infrastructure 2 to 3 years BEFORE the launch of the ACCN, whereas I don't think that was the case with the SECN. So my point was that the ACCN will already be paid for before it ever launches (I think).

Not really. We got the jump on it too, but not a 3 year jump. But Louisville's outlay is right in line with most of ours.

Anyway my point is that I basically agree with you. For those who want to recoup the overhead and want to back it out of the first year's profits, I was merely saying your profits if even remotely close to the projections should clear the overhead in 2 years. It doesn't matter when the expenses accumulated for somebody wanting to offset profits they are going to deduct it anyway. My point was that our year 1 profits covered most expenses, and by year 2 all of our schools should have cleared them. I think the timeline for the ACC will approximate that with maybe just a few going into year 3 before the overhead is cleared.

The analysis from this line of thinking understates costs.

The network is what, three years old now? It's now worth 4.69 Billion. Do you think what the start up costs of 7-11 million per school which were recovered within a two year period made a difference? Your fine distinction about the accounting is what we grew up calling a tempest in a teapot.

BTW by comparison the BTN is worth 1.14 billion and the PACN is worth 305 million. All of them lost subscribers this past year. The SEC lost 7 million subscribers bringing our total to 70 million by one estimation and as low as 61 million by another. But we opened last year on every streaming provider that carries sports. None of those revenues are counted in the 4.69 Billion and none of those services have been counted as new subscribers. I'm sure the same is true for the BTN and PACN, and I know they've been true for ESPN subscriptions as well.

Somehow I just don't believe that the start up costs for the ACCN will amount to a concern of any kind in 3 years or so.

Who valued it? How'd they value it? What is the value of the inventory w/o a network? And you're leaving off ESPN's costs (i.e. the guys who actually own the network). Like I said, you're dramatically under reporting costs while probably throwing out a half baked valuation (i.e. something from Forbes that was created after visiting a palm reader).

But the truth is that I honestly don't know whether or not the SECN was a good idea, nor do I care. Similarly, I have no idea why you're so defensive about it, and/or bent on convincing me it was a good idea. I truly don't care. I do, however, care about the ACCN, and I do care about reporting/discussing accurate facts as they pertain to said upcoming network. Promoting a framework that arbitrarily and randomly ignores pertinent costs frustrates that goal. You have an entire board to rah rah the SEC if you so please - facts or not. I only mentioned the SECN (along w/ the PACN and BTN) because those networks are close comps to the ACCN, and posters commonly throw out insane statements when discussing them.

(05-06-2017 12:34 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 03:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Well, I think there's another difference: the ACC is building the infrastructure 2 to 3 years BEFORE the launch of the ACCN, whereas I don't think that was the case with the SECN. So my point was that the ACCN will already be paid for before it ever launches (I think).

Not really. We got the jump on it too, but not a 3 year jump. But Louisville's outlay is right in line with most of ours.

Anyway my point is that I basically agree with you. For those who want to recoup the overhead and want to back it out of the first year's profits, I was merely saying your profits if even remotely close to the projections should clear the overhead in 2 years. It doesn't matter when the expenses accumulated for somebody wanting to offset profits they are going to deduct it anyway. My point was that our year 1 profits covered most expenses, and by year 2 all of our schools should have cleared them. I think the timeline for the ACC will approximate that with maybe just a few going into year 3 before the overhead is cleared.

The analysis from this line of thinking understates costs.

The network is what, three years old now? It's now worth 4.69 Billion. Do you think what the start up costs of 7-11 million per school which were recovered within a two year period made a difference? Your fine distinction about the accounting is what we grew up calling a tempest in a teapot.

BTW by comparison the BTN is worth 1.14 billion and the PACN is worth 305 million. All of them lost subscribers this past year. The SEC lost 7 million subscribers bringing our total to 70 million by one estimation and as low as 61 million by another. But we opened last year on every streaming provider that carries sports. None of those revenues are counted in the 4.69 Billion and none of those services have been counted as new subscribers. I'm sure the same is true for the BTN and PACN, and I know they've been true for ESPN subscriptions as well.

Somehow I just don't believe that the start up costs for the ACCN will amount to a concern of any kind in 3 years or so.

Who valued it? How'd they value it? What is the value of the inventory w/o a network? And you're leaving off ESPN's costs (i.e. the guys who actually own the network). Like I said, you're dramatically under reporting costs while probably throwing out a half baked valuation (i.e. something from Forbes that was created after visiting a palm reader).

But the truth is that I honestly don't know whether or not the SECN was a good idea, nor do I care. Similarly, I have no idea why you're so defensive about it, and/or bent on convincing me it was a good idea. I truly don't care. I do, however, care about the ACCN, and I do care about reporting/discussing accurate facts as they pertain to said upcoming network. Promoting a framework that arbitrarily and randomly ignores pertinent costs frustrates that goal. You have an entire board to rah rah the SEC if you so please - facts or not. I only mentioned the SECN (along w/ the PACN and BTN) because those networks are close comps to the ACCN, and posters commonly throw out insane statements when discussing them.

SNL Kagan valued it and the other networks. Since they are a top flight accounting firm I think I'll take their word for it. Look them up. I'm not rah rahing anything here. The ACCN is going to be patterned after the SECN and both are ESPN products. The start up costs appear to be about the same so it's more of an apples to apples scenario than you are indicating. I'm merely pointing out that the start up costs are nebulous compared to the potential value that if modeled as ours should NET a nice return on that investment.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/...=hootsuite

These guys are professionals and trusted by Wall Street. I would think that they would do as an authority. If your network is modeled after the industry leader for sports conference networks and your start up overhead is about the same, then I like your chances.

I am pretty confident the ACC Network will start up on time and will make money, in time.

I do not know how much, nor do I really care that much. They ain't sending any of that money to me.

It will not make as much as the BTN or the SEC Network, most likely, but may do fairly well in time.

It is better than no network at all. Ask the Big 12.

I tend to agree with JR's analysis since the ACC and SEC Networks are kissin' cousins to an extent.

ESPN has picked which horse it wants to back despite cord cutting. It is the ACC and not the Big 12.

That pretty much is the end of the story.

ESPN's commitment to the ACC Network led to the ACC GOR extension until 2036 and will keep the ACC together.

(05-06-2017 01:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 12:34 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 10:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 04:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Not really. We got the jump on it too, but not a 3 year jump. But Louisville's outlay is right in line with most of ours.

Anyway my point is that I basically agree with you. For those who want to recoup the overhead and want to back it out of the first year's profits, I was merely saying your profits if even remotely close to the projections should clear the overhead in 2 years. It doesn't matter when the expenses accumulated for somebody wanting to offset profits they are going to deduct it anyway. My point was that our year 1 profits covered most expenses, and by year 2 all of our schools should have cleared them. I think the timeline for the ACC will approximate that with maybe just a few going into year 3 before the overhead is cleared.

The analysis from this line of thinking understates costs.

The network is what, three years old now? It's now worth 4.69 Billion. Do you think what the start up costs of 7-11 million per school which were recovered within a two year period made a difference? Your fine distinction about the accounting is what we grew up calling a tempest in a teapot.

BTW by comparison the BTN is worth 1.14 billion and the PACN is worth 305 million. All of them lost subscribers this past year. The SEC lost 7 million subscribers bringing our total to 70 million by one estimation and as low as 61 million by another. But we opened last year on every streaming provider that carries sports. None of those revenues are counted in the 4.69 Billion and none of those services have been counted as new subscribers. I'm sure the same is true for the BTN and PACN, and I know they've been true for ESPN subscriptions as well.

Somehow I just don't believe that the start up costs for the ACCN will amount to a concern of any kind in 3 years or so.

Who valued it? How'd they value it? What is the value of the inventory w/o a network? And you're leaving off ESPN's costs (i.e. the guys who actually own the network). Like I said, you're dramatically under reporting costs while probably throwing out a half baked valuation (i.e. something from Forbes that was created after visiting a palm reader).

But the truth is that I honestly don't know whether or not the SECN was a good idea, nor do I care. Similarly, I have no idea why you're so defensive about it, and/or bent on convincing me it was a good idea. I truly don't care. I do, however, care about the ACCN, and I do care about reporting/discussing accurate facts as they pertain to said upcoming network. Promoting a framework that arbitrarily and randomly ignores pertinent costs frustrates that goal. You have an entire board to rah rah the SEC if you so please - facts or not. I only mentioned the SECN (along w/ the PACN and BTN) because those networks are close comps to the ACCN, and posters commonly throw out insane statements when discussing them.

SNL Kagan valued it and the other networks. Since they are a top flight accounting firm I think I'll take their word for it. Look them up. I'm not rah rahing anything here. The ACCN is going to be patterned after the SECN and both are ESPN products. The start up costs appear to be about the same so it's more of an apples to apples scenario than you are indicating. I'm merely pointing out that the start up costs are nebulous compared to the potential value that if modeled as ours should NET a nice return on that investment.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/...=hootsuite

These guys are professionals and trusted by Wall Street. I would think that they would do as an authority. If your network is modeled after the industry leader for sports conference networks and your start up overhead is about the same, then I like your chances.

This is exactly the BS that drives me nuts.

1. SNL Kagan isn't a top flight accounting firm.

2. If you think that the SEC turned ~$140,000,000 ($10 mm per school) into $4,690,000,000 in 2 years, you're out of your mind. That a YEARLY GACR of that investment is 479%. In other words, they're claiming that they grew the value of their money 32.5x in 2 years. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Seriously, do you really actually think that SECN content is worth +4.1x what the BTN is worth? Based on what? And don't say "demographic shifts," because by the time that demographics shifted enough to make a 4.1x difference, the time value of money would have made the NPV of those revenue streams worth less than what's in my pocket (change from the ball game that I went to yesterday).

I'm going to go out on a limb and say some journalist and/or university official got their hands on CapitalIQ, wandered over to the comp valuations section, and did a EV/EBITDA calc and used Disney + FOX + a bunch of tech/tech communications firms as comps (those were probably the suggested comps). And then shockingly, when you use median multiple of Disney + Fox + a bunch of tech firms, you get this.

3. If you have ever used CapIQ, you'd know how far in left field their analytics are. You might as well use a Forbes emotional valuation. CapIQ is good at collecting information, not analyzing it.

4. And no, you're ignoring massive costs by randomly brushing them under the rug and pretending like they don't exist.

5. And lastly, I do agree that the ACCN and the SECN were probably good ideas. ESPN execs know more than either of us about the sports programming biz, but who knows how good of an idea it probably is. For all either of us know, the move's main source of value isn't from it's RoI - it could be from it's risk profile. Disney could have just done a study that determined that these channels have a favorable covariance w/ their other assets, and given them the green light to reduce the overall risk profile of their portfolio. And all things being equal, the conference commissioners probably would have gone along for political reasons.

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

Permanent crossovers?
ND- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- VT & Louisville
Syr- Louisville & Clemson
BC- Cincinnati & Virginia
UL- Pittsburgh & Syracuse
Cin- ND & BC
Miami- ND & FSU
WF- NC & Duke
FSU- Miami & GT
Clem- GT & Syracuse
VT- Virginia & Pittsburgh
NC St- NC & Duke
NC- NC St & WF
Duke- NC St & WF
Virginia- VT & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU

I can tell that you put a lot of work into the scheduling.
If something drastic happens and Texas does not move to the ACC as a partial or permanent member, I like the addition of Cincinnati.

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

in time for next go 'round ...
ut in whole or in part to ACC ...
ou & osu to pac ...
big12 remnants merge with the american to form a more perfect union ...
at the end of the day ...
4 power leagues on roughly equal footing ...
see things play out ...

NATTY FATTY