Debt repayment schedule

Jerry the Jacket said:
Must have got that title loan on the Ramblin Wreck. I would not worry about this unless you are personally responsible for paying it back. Looks like fake news anyway.

Go Jackets!
Click to expand...

It literally is the opposite of fake news. Pulled straight from the last GTAA FY financial report.

You notice how anyone calling it old hasn’t posted an actual rebuttal yet?
 
Diseqc said:
It literally is the opposite of fake news. Pulled straight from the last GTAA FY financial report.

You notice how anyone calling it old hasn’t posted an actual rebuttal yet?
Click to expand...

What do you wanna do? Sue DRad?
 
Diseqc said:
It literally is the opposite of fake news. Pulled straight from the last GTAA FY financial report.

You notice how anyone calling it old hasn’t posted an actual rebuttal yet?
Click to expand...

You mean the same chart that appeared all the way back to 2015-16?
http://www.fin-services.gatech.edu/...tech_athletic_association_inc_fs_-6_30_16.pdf

Good job being the first to report this.

giphy.gif
 
Diseqc said:
The school isn’t paying for the AA’s debt. People say this all the time about all the research dollars GT brings in, that money isn’t used for the football stadium.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much money GT earns on research but I would imagine it is a lot of money and it is also untouchable due to some legal framework.

Is the AA subsidized by the school in some way or is it self-sustaining? My understanding is that most collegiate athletic programs are not profitable and are subsidized by the school.
 
Diseqc said:
Cool they’ve reported on it in multiple years. It’s still straight out of the latest FY report. And the axe is still preparing to fall when the balloon payment comes due.

Sorry to interrupt your Quinlan BJ session. Get back at it.
Click to expand...

You so pussyhurt.
 
Diseqc said:
Cool they’ve reported on it in multiple years. It’s still straight out of the latest FY report. And the axe is still preparing to fall when the balloon payment comes due.

Sorry to interrupt your Quinlan BJ session. Get back at it.
Click to expand...
Miserable SOB
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
I don't know how much money GT earns on research but I would imagine it is a lot of money and it is also untouchable due to some legal framework.

Is the AA subsidized by the school in some way or is it self-sustaining? My understanding is that most collegiate athletic programs are not profitable and are subsidized by the school.
Click to expand...

They are two separate organizations.

Student fees help subsidize some costs of for the GTAA, but that is it.
 
05GTCorndog said:
You so pussyhurt.
Click to expand...
You’re the one bitching because a thread I started references info from the past few years FY reports. Oh no, we’re talking about something not in this week’s AJC. Feel free to go back to the Fire CPJ thread if that’s more your speed.
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
I don't know how much money GT earns on research but I would imagine it is a lot of money and it is also untouchable due to some legal framework.

Is the AA subsidized by the school in some way or is it self-sustaining? My understanding is that most collegiate athletic programs are not profitable and are subsidized by the school.
Click to expand...

I think a vast majority of AAs lose money. But that is why donations to buy tickets, etc were instituted.

The "problem" is that almost all the other sports are sustained by football.

In Georgia I believe, but not sure, it is against state law for University funds to be used by athletic drpsrtments. Others may have more info.

The problem for GTAA, as compared to a lot of other schools, is that the Alumni Assn often seems as if they don't care if the GTAA succeeds or fails.

Have always found it strange that during the great Dodd days the GTAA would allow the Alumni Assn / Roll Call to pass containers down the aisles at a football game to solicit money.

But now the Alumni Assn seems to have forgotten those days.
 
texstinger said:
I think a vast majority of AAs lose money. But that is why donations to buy tickets, etc were instituted.

The "problem" is that almost all the other sports are sustained by football.

In Georgia I believe, but not sure, it is against state law for University funds to be used by athletic drpsrtments. Others may have more info.

The problem for GTAA, as compared to a lot of other schools, is that the Alumni Assn often seems as if they don't care if the GTAA succeeds or fails.

Have always found it strange that during the great Dodd days the GTAA would allow the Alumni Assn / Roll Call to pass containers down the aisles at a football game to solicit money.

But now the Alumni Assn seems to have forgotten those days.
Click to expand...


Athletics is considered to be an auxiliary service by the University System of Georgia and must be self-funded. UGA athletics makes $. GT athletics breaks even (or close to it). All other USG schools typically lose $ on athletics. There was an audit report on this a few years ago in the wake of Kennesaw State getting a football team.

BBR
 
Anyone in here an accountant?

If I'm reading this sheet right, the 2011 and 2012 bond issuances were a result of restructuring some old debt (2001 & 2008), as well as building the McTit 2.0 + practice facility + Ken Byers Tennis Complex. That's not entirely on DRad then, right? I mean, öööö DRad, but still - over half of the lt debt seems like it was a result of the north stands construction project from 2001.

Current financial statement - http://www.fin-services.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/images/gtaa_final_financial_statements.pdf
 
I looked up the lengthy post I did last year on GTAA balance sheet. I'll just quote the tl;dr summary:

https://www.stingtalk.com/board/threads/college-footballs-financial-woes.91654/#post-1914114

1. $111 million is the 2001 bond issuance.
2. $20 million variable rate bond renewed annually by Northern Trust from 2008.
3. $89 million bond issuance in 2011 ($50 mil. for McCamish Pavillion, $9 mil. for practice facility).
4. $9 million bond from SunTrust to purchase golf practice facility.

Then there is the $100 million portion of the endowment managed by the Georgia Tech Foundation, which should be netted from the total debt.
Click to expand...

Why do we not pay down the principal instead of having a $100 million endowment? It basically makes the GTAA a heavily levered investment vehicle. My guess is big money donors would rather have an endowment than simply pay down principal.

With the endowment subtracted out, we have $100 million extra principal. If GTAA was an isolated concern, then honestly it doesn't have enough coverage from operating revenues. I don't know if GT or even the state explicitly cosigns all the loans. An implicit backstop certainly exists. As long as these implicit or explicit backstops exist, then the GTAA will likely just roll over the principal indefinitely.
 
floridajacket said:
Why do we not pay down the principal instead of having a $100 million endowment? It basically makes the GTAA a heavily levered investment vehicle. My guess is big money donors would rather have an endowment than simply pay down principal.
Click to expand...
A significant portion of our endowment is restricted funds. The GTAA is not allowed (without getting court approval in a contested proceeding) to use those funds to pay down construction debt.

In my experience, people who give money like to do so when it seems like their gift will have positive lasting impact for a long time... the kind of thing that will be around long enough to need its own name. So endowed scholarships are popular because they're around indefinitely. Funding specific construction needs is popular because everyone sees your name on it and it'll be standing for decades, hopefully. What's not popular is paying for something that's already been built and is already old news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top