G
Please tell me your better at reading financial statements than that? Tech accounts for all conference money in one bucket but allocates maintenance costs per sport. That's why every sport they list loses money. There's no way any sport can support the total cost of competition but not get the total revenue allocated to it and come out in the black.
hiveredtech
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 5,889
I cannot see GeeTee's posts, but your response has me laughing my butt off.
One thing that is always unique many times when I see GT's revenue statement compared to other schools, is we do not reallocate items such as student fees, NCAA/ACC contributions/revenue, endowments, investments, etc. It just goes to the bottom which allows our overall GTAA to show a profit each year, which is all that matters in the end.
One thing that is always unique many times when I see GT's revenue statement compared to other schools, is we do not reallocate items such as student fees, NCAA/ACC contributions/revenue, endowments, investments, etc. It just goes to the bottom which allows our overall GTAA to show a profit each year, which is all that matters in the end.
G
Geetee
Guest
right. check out some of our rivals before sugar coating everything...even ticket sales.
Okay, of the 7 ACC schools that responded to the request for information, we're #2 in overall athletic department profit. We're #6 in football ticket sales (ranked by $$) and #4 in basketball. We're #5 in conference distributions (probably overall basketball shares based on NCAA participation over the last 5 years).
I'm not sure what you mean by sugar coating. The fact is that if we distributed conference money as some schools do the results for each sport listed would be different. If we didn't allocate facility maintenance, as some other schools do, we would show almost a $2M surplus in football.
The point here is simply that you don't know how to read financial statements. There's no sugar coating going on. BTW, we already know we sell fewer tickets than VT, Clemson, etc. WE HAVE A SMALLER STADIUM. Even if we sold every seat for every game we would still trail those schools badly. ('course we could just charge more and look better too!!!)
I'm not sure what you mean by sugar coating. The fact is that if we distributed conference money as some schools do the results for each sport listed would be different. If we didn't allocate facility maintenance, as some other schools do, we would show almost a $2M surplus in football.
The point here is simply that you don't know how to read financial statements. There's no sugar coating going on. BTW, we already know we sell fewer tickets than VT, Clemson, etc. WE HAVE A SMALLER STADIUM. Even if we sold every seat for every game we would still trail those schools badly. ('course we could just charge more and look better too!!!)
G
Geetee
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, of the 7 ACC schools that responded to the request for information, we're #2 in overall athletic department profit. We're #6 in football ticket sales (ranked by $$) and #4 in basketball. We're #5 in conference distributions (probably overall basketball shares based on NCAA participation over the last 5 years).
[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/pat.gif Of only seven ACC schools that reported as you say, we're next to last in ticket sales. The way you talk about that is a point of pride or something. Bottom half for basketball of the seven and two from the bottom of the seven in conference distribution. steller. Winning programs are generating money which we aren't having. To get an idea of the difference..check out Ugags..not even in the same league. No reason we shouldn't be somewhat close.
double dip those stats again in the sugar.
Okay, of the 7 ACC schools that responded to the request for information, we're #2 in overall athletic department profit. We're #6 in football ticket sales (ranked by $$) and #4 in basketball. We're #5 in conference distributions (probably overall basketball shares based on NCAA participation over the last 5 years).
[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/pat.gif Of only seven ACC schools that reported as you say, we're next to last in ticket sales. The way you talk about that is a point of pride or something. Bottom half for basketball of the seven and two from the bottom of the seven in conference distribution. steller. Winning programs are generating money which we aren't having. To get an idea of the difference..check out Ugags..not even in the same league. No reason we shouldn't be somewhat close.
double dip those stats again in the sugar.
Still don't get your point. You think we just started selling fewer tickets than ugag? You think their stadium just expanded last year? They seat what, 85,000? We seat just over 50,000 iirc. Do the math genius.
Yes, winning programs generate more money. So do bigger stadiums, bigger schools, etc.
You do remember how this all started right? You said we lost money in football. I said no, the calculations shown are not complete because they do not allocate costs/revenue back to the sports because it really isn't that important to GTAA evidently. You then proceeded to change the subject as you always do when faced with a rebuttal to your original point.
So what are you whining about now? That ugag makes more money on athletics than we do? WE ALL KNOW THAT. So what is your point?
Yes, winning programs generate more money. So do bigger stadiums, bigger schools, etc.
You do remember how this all started right? You said we lost money in football. I said no, the calculations shown are not complete because they do not allocate costs/revenue back to the sports because it really isn't that important to GTAA evidently. You then proceeded to change the subject as you always do when faced with a rebuttal to your original point.
So what are you whining about now? That ugag makes more money on athletics than we do? WE ALL KNOW THAT. So what is your point?
G
Geetee
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, winning programs generate more money. So what is your point?
[/ QUOTE ]
ding ding ding. rocket science it isn't. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Yes, winning programs generate more money. So what is your point?
[/ QUOTE ]
ding ding ding. rocket science it isn't. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
The real question is whether our finances today are much different from when O'Leary was here. That's clearly the most successful run we've had since the Dodd days. What was our avg attendance and what were our contributions? If you look at ugag's numbers the single biggest line on their revenue side is contributions with over $26M. Have Tech fans EVER given anything like that? I don't think we've ever come close. A big part of that is being a much smaller school but we've also never shown the ability to raise that kind of money except for single contributions as best I can tell.
GTg8r
Varsity Lurker
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2002
- Messages
- 465
my rebuttal...
GT does raise that kind of money. It's never been solely for athletics.
In Athens, their financial bases are two substantially different types of people, I believe.
We can't use the single biggest revenue generator, because Tech people have shown a propensity to b---- and moan, if they aren't getting what they think is their money's worth.
Market be damned...
GT does raise that kind of money. It's never been solely for athletics.
In Athens, their financial bases are two substantially different types of people, I believe.
We can't use the single biggest revenue generator, because Tech people have shown a propensity to b---- and moan, if they aren't getting what they think is their money's worth.
Market be damned...
hiveredtech
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 5,889
Re: my rebuttal...
There is not point in arguing with GeeTee (i.e. Bulldawg). The bottom line is it sounds like he does not know how to read organization financials. If he is complaining about ticket sales, we are bringing in close to as many people as we ever have in the history of the program and even at its peak it would never have as many as some Big 10 and SEC schools simply because of sheer math. Anything different is like expecting a AA high school to outdraw someone like Brookwood in attendance.
Bottom line...the financials are there and we are making a couple million in profit each year.
There is not point in arguing with GeeTee (i.e. Bulldawg). The bottom line is it sounds like he does not know how to read organization financials. If he is complaining about ticket sales, we are bringing in close to as many people as we ever have in the history of the program and even at its peak it would never have as many as some Big 10 and SEC schools simply because of sheer math. Anything different is like expecting a AA high school to outdraw someone like Brookwood in attendance.
Bottom line...the financials are there and we are making a couple million in profit each year.
ramblinwise1
beware the zealot
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 18,398
All that proves is we're not a bunch of dumbasses laying big contributions like so many of the red&blackneck masses. And someone hit it right on the head, there are two kinds of donors at UGAg, the previously mentioned trailer park alumni and the REAL alumni who are morphing into suburban Atlantans who could do without the aforementioned "TPA". Thats why Mike Adams was brought in and is cracking down on all rednecked experience surrounding UGAg football.
I predict Ga Southern will expand their stadium dramatically in the next decade. And we've always known Gee Tee was a dawg in hiding.
I predict Ga Southern will expand their stadium dramatically in the next decade. And we've always known Gee Tee was a dawg in hiding.
augustabuzz
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,614
"I just think he had a problem with rational thought."
nc, isn't your statement a prerequisite of a UGa sidewalk alum? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugher.gif
nc, isn't your statement a prerequisite of a UGa sidewalk alum? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugher.gif