How meaningful an audit is depends on one thing - the motivations of the person or entity that ordered the auditcal83dls79 said:these audits don't mean crap. Ever worked at a public company? Plus they happen with regularity and by magic everyone's nose is clean.westcoastdude said:
I hope this is an audit into the much too late firing of McKeever. Could portend the dismissal of Knowlton.UC Regents meet next week. Agenda includes ... pic.twitter.com/YyJR9Y4hBw
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) January 16, 2024
precisely, so to think some malfeasance that would shine poorly on yourself/administration thru an audit is mere fantasy and and the end result is actually a complete waste of time energy and money… find the answer you need or you go hire another audit team.Bear Naked Ladies said:How meaningful an audit is depends on one thing - the motivations of the person or entity that ordered the auditcal83dls79 said:these audits don't mean crap. Ever worked at a public company? Plus they happen with regularity and by magic everyone's nose is clean.westcoastdude said:
I hope this is an audit into the much too late firing of McKeever. Could portend the dismissal of Knowlton.UC Regents meet next week. Agenda includes ... pic.twitter.com/YyJR9Y4hBw
— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) January 16, 2024
He doesn't avoid CA state tax. If he earns in California, he pays Cali taxes. Doesn't matter if he lives part-time elsewhere. If you've tried moving out of state to avoid California income tax, even if you aren't employed in California, you know how tough it is to avoid the FTB.calumnus said:Bear Naked Ladies said:This is the second most typi-Cal thing I have read about Cal in the last few months. Only at Cal would it make sense to not only have a mostly absentee athletic director, but to commit to such a person long-term. And that's even if he was doing his job at an average level.calumnus said:He and his wife live, pay taxes, vote and donate our money to the local Republican Party in Colorado Springs (and Colorado generally) where he also invests in real estate with his sons. Apparently he is renting a place on the other side of the Caldecott for when he can't do zoom calls and he has to be in Berkeley.Bear Naked Ladies said:I actually didn't know this. This guy that we're paying millions of dollars to doesn't even live near the job that pays him millions of dollars?.bluehenbear said:
Poor Jim,
All these outside influences (conferences imploding, coaching vacancies, audits, lawsuits, and investigations) forcing him to stop telecommuting from Colorado and making him do his fscking job.
Well when you get $1.3 million a year from the California tax payers you need to make sure you don't pay any California taxes on it yourself. Own the libs and all.
Hopefully this all comes out in the UC audit.
This, Others maybe thinking of pension payments which are sourced by the recipient's state of residence.gobears15 said:I'm still not convinced that's the case. The university has payroll information for out of state employees directing them to complete an out-of-state tax withholding form.calumnus said:WalterSobchak said:Yeah he's definitely paying CA income tax on his CA source income. It's his side hustle income he's trying to protect from CA rates by domiciling in CO. We've been around this block before in another thread. Not sure why the misconception persists.Goobear said:
Well if he is on a W-2 than most likely he is getting taxed in CA. I doubt he gets paid on a 1099 or his enumeration is paid to an entity he owns....
Thanks for the correction, I don't remember seeing it in another thread (there have been many).
At least California is getting back a small portion of the $millions he is stealing from the state's taxpayers.
Also, there's a UC system-wide payroll info PDF that goes over the tax handling of out-of-state workers in plain language. See page 3:Knowlton is in the second category. He is a non-resident who sometimes works from California. The portion of his income earned in California is subject to California income tax. The rest is not.Quote:
The Out of State Income Tax Withholding form assists Payroll Services in determining the tax withholding for an individual who works and lives in a state other than California.
Employees are categorized as one of the following:
- California tax residents - subject to tax withholding on their world wide income regardless of where the work is performed.
- California non-residents who work in California - subject to tax withholding on their portion of income that is earned in the state of California.
- Non-residents working and living outside California - not subject to California tax withholding. They may be subject to state income tax withholding in the state in which they are working.
fantasizing about this coming out in the audit is a waste of valuable time but interesting chatter amongst tax attorneysjuarezbear said:He doesn't avoid CA state tax. If he earns in California, he pays Cali taxes. Doesn't matter if he lives part-time elsewhere. If you've tried moving out of state to avoid California income tax, even if you aren't employed in California, you know how tough it is to avoid the FTB.calumnus said:Bear Naked Ladies said:This is the second most typi-Cal thing I have read about Cal in the last few months. Only at Cal would it make sense to not only have a mostly absentee athletic director, but to commit to such a person long-term. And that's even if he was doing his job at an average level.calumnus said:He and his wife live, pay taxes, vote and donate our money to the local Republican Party in Colorado Springs (and Colorado generally) where he also invests in real estate with his sons. Apparently he is renting a place on the other side of the Caldecott for when he can't do zoom calls and he has to be in Berkeley.Bear Naked Ladies said:I actually didn't know this. This guy that we're paying millions of dollars to doesn't even live near the job that pays him millions of dollars?.bluehenbear said:
Poor Jim,
All these outside influences (conferences imploding, coaching vacancies, audits, lawsuits, and investigations) forcing him to stop telecommuting from Colorado and making him do his fscking job.
Well when you get $1.3 million a year from the California tax payers you need to make sure you don't pay any California taxes on it yourself. Own the libs and all.
Hopefully this all comes out in the UC audit.
duhDoubtfulBear said:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/01/17/financial-challenges-intensify-for-ucla-cal-with-several-daunting-hurdles-ahead/
Seems like the meeting is more about how the hell do UCLA and Cal pay for our athletic programs than any vindicative move to get CALimony or force Knolwton out.
DoubtfulBear said:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/01/17/financial-challenges-intensify-for-ucla-cal-with-several-daunting-hurdles-ahead/
Seems like the meeting is more about how the hell do UCLA and Cal pay for our athletic programs than any vindicative move to get CALimony or force Knolwton out.
College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
DoubtfulBear said:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/01/17/financial-challenges-intensify-for-ucla-cal-with-several-daunting-hurdles-ahead/
Seems like the meeting is more about how the hell do UCLA and Cal pay for our athletic programs than any vindicative move to get CALimony or force Knolwton out.
BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
And if football wasn't paying for ALL the other sports, they would be able to pay down the stadium debt!BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
calumnus said:BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
I am not talking about accounting. I am talking about the business/economic decision of football as an ongoing concern going forward. I argued for cheaper options at the time but the money is spent and we do not have a time machine. Given that the stadium debt is a sunk cost, football absolutely generates positive net revenues for the department, though that amount is set to decrease this year with the move to the ACC.
calumnus said:BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
I am not talking about accounting. I am talking about the business/economic decision of football as an ongoing concern going forward. I argued for cheaper options at the time but the money is spent and we do not have a time machine. Given that the stadium debt is a sunk cost, football absolutely generates positive net revenues for the department, though that amount is set to decrease this year with the move to the ACC.
BearSD said:calumnus said:BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
I am not talking about accounting. I am talking about the business/economic decision of football as an ongoing concern going forward. I argued for cheaper options at the time but the money is spent and we do not have a time machine. Given that the stadium debt is a sunk cost, football absolutely generates positive net revenues for the department, though that amount is set to decrease this year with the move to the ACC.
The university's official report to the feds uses your preferred numbers (ie, stadium debt not included in football expenses), and this is from the most recent annual report, for the 2021-2022 school year.
Football revenues: $44,472,660
Football expenses: $34,014,920
Find that here, by searching for UC Berkeley: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details
That revenue includes a full share of Pac-12 media revenue for the year, which is 80% attributed to football. Given the ACC haircut, donations are going to have to increase dramatically.
Cal and Stanford are each "giving back" to the ACC 70% of the $24 milIion/year ESPN payment per-school for "Tier 1" TV rights. That's a $16.8 million haircut each year for the first seven years.calumnus said:BearSD said:calumnus said:BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
I am not talking about accounting. I am talking about the business/economic decision of football as an ongoing concern going forward. I argued for cheaper options at the time but the money is spent and we do not have a time machine. Given that the stadium debt is a sunk cost, football absolutely generates positive net revenues for the department, though that amount is set to decrease this year with the move to the ACC.
The university's official report to the feds uses your preferred numbers (ie, stadium debt not included in football expenses), and this is from the most recent annual report, for the 2021-2022 school year.
Football revenues: $44,472,660
Football expenses: $34,014,920
Find that here, by searching for UC Berkeley: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details
That revenue includes a full share of Pac-12 media revenue for the year, which is 80% attributed to football. Given the ACC haircut, donations are going to have to increase dramatically.
Here are Cal's annual statements of revenues and expenses for the athletics department with a breakdown for football:
https://calbears.com/sports/2013/4/17/208204144.aspx
The most recent year (2021 football season) shows a $10 million surplus from football after a $5 million charge for CMS debt. So $15 million net revenue without it.
Ticket sales of $6 million are well below the $9.4 million for Dykes' last season or the $12.2 million for the 2010 season. So a lot of room for improvement with just a more exciting product.
I'm not sure why $13 million in sponsorships from Learfield (mostly?) is considered "non-program specific." I don't see how we get that if we don't play football.
To me it looks like football is providing at least $25 million after variable expenses to fund operations.
However, we will take a ($10 million?) hit this year in the ACC. We can easily add $5 million in ticket sales with a better product and better marketing. But at 2021 sales, with reduced media revenue, take away Learfield and increase travel expenses and it is closer to break even.
Now if you take into account the women's sports football has to support to satisfy Title IX, we could be entering a period where football is seen as a losing proposition.
We cannot afford Wilcox's buyout, but we need that additional $5 million in ticket sales that will come with greater success. Supporting the NIL program just makes good sense.
I view it as a more nuanced situation. The retrofit part, which was a substantial portion of the cost/finance debt, almost always is a university expense. We don't go to the Chemistry Department to assign the cost to retrofit their building to current standards; therefore, we don't eliminate a good portion of your department to pay for the debt service on that cost. There are costs to having a University located on an earthquake fault that the entire University must pay. Which is why the Chancellor was able to pursued constituencies for Campus to pick up that portion of the stadium debt.BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
Moreover, for better or worse, a lot of fans have become turned-off by the current environment (NIL, Portal, etc.), the game experience and food, or TV related starting times. I'm not passing value judgments, just suggesting why attendance will more than likely continue to decrease.BearSD said:Cal and Stanford are each "giving back" to the ACC 70% of the $24 milIion/year ESPN payment per-school for "Tier 1" TV rights. That's a $16.8 million haircut each year for the first seven years.calumnus said:BearSD said:calumnus said:BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
I am not talking about accounting. I am talking about the business/economic decision of football as an ongoing concern going forward. I argued for cheaper options at the time but the money is spent and we do not have a time machine. Given that the stadium debt is a sunk cost, football absolutely generates positive net revenues for the department, though that amount is set to decrease this year with the move to the ACC.
The university's official report to the feds uses your preferred numbers (ie, stadium debt not included in football expenses), and this is from the most recent annual report, for the 2021-2022 school year.
Football revenues: $44,472,660
Football expenses: $34,014,920
Find that here, by searching for UC Berkeley: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details
That revenue includes a full share of Pac-12 media revenue for the year, which is 80% attributed to football. Given the ACC haircut, donations are going to have to increase dramatically.
Here are Cal's annual statements of revenues and expenses for the athletics department with a breakdown for football:
https://calbears.com/sports/2013/4/17/208204144.aspx
The most recent year (2021 football season) shows a $10 million surplus from football after a $5 million charge for CMS debt. So $15 million net revenue without it.
Ticket sales of $6 million are well below the $9.4 million for Dykes' last season or the $12.2 million for the 2010 season. So a lot of room for improvement with just a more exciting product.
I'm not sure why $13 million in sponsorships from Learfield (mostly?) is considered "non-program specific." I don't see how we get that if we don't play football.
To me it looks like football is providing at least $25 million after variable expenses to fund operations.
However, we will take a ($10 million?) hit this year in the ACC. We can easily add $5 million in ticket sales with a better product and better marketing. But at 2021 sales, with reduced media revenue, take away Learfield and increase travel expenses and it is closer to break even.
Now if you take into account the women's sports football has to support to satisfy Title IX, we could be entering a period where football is seen as a losing proposition.
We cannot afford Wilcox's buyout, but we need that additional $5 million in ticket sales that will come with greater success. Supporting the NIL program just makes good sense.
FWIW, I would not count on increasing football attendance to where it was 15-20 years ago. There are at least a dozen games on TV every Saturday now, everyone is glued to their phones and other devices, and the Bay Area is pro sports oriented. The Oregon Ducks are "the" football franchise in their state; the Bay has the 49ers and also large followings for every local other pro sport. IMO the model for better athletic department finances is not reliance on ticket sales. It needs to be more like Stanford or SMU, where the athletic donations are high enough that the finances are healthy even if you sell only 20,000 tickets. Hopefully you sell a lot more, but you don't base your financial model on that.
BearSD said:Cal and Stanford are each "giving back" to the ACC 70% of the $24 milIion/year ESPN payment per-school for "Tier 1" TV rights. That's a $16.8 million haircut each year for the first seven years.calumnus said:BearSD said:calumnus said:BearSD said:The stadium is absolutely a cost that is rightly on the football program's profit/loss ledger. All of the money that was sunk into the stadium renovation was spent only to maintain the football program as an ongoing enterprise at the "highest level" of the sport. If Cal had no football team at the time, or if the team was at a Division I-AA, II, or III level (or Ivy), CMS would not have been renovated and that money would never have been spent. It is 100 percent a football program expense.calumnus said:BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
Though the stadium debt will need to be paid whether we have a football team or not. Looking at only variable costs, football and basketball are net revenue generators at most D1 schools.
I am not talking about accounting. I am talking about the business/economic decision of football as an ongoing concern going forward. I argued for cheaper options at the time but the money is spent and we do not have a time machine. Given that the stadium debt is a sunk cost, football absolutely generates positive net revenues for the department, though that amount is set to decrease this year with the move to the ACC.
The university's official report to the feds uses your preferred numbers (ie, stadium debt not included in football expenses), and this is from the most recent annual report, for the 2021-2022 school year.
Football revenues: $44,472,660
Football expenses: $34,014,920
Find that here, by searching for UC Berkeley: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details
That revenue includes a full share of Pac-12 media revenue for the year, which is 80% attributed to football. Given the ACC haircut, donations are going to have to increase dramatically.
Here are Cal's annual statements of revenues and expenses for the athletics department with a breakdown for football:
https://calbears.com/sports/2013/4/17/208204144.aspx
The most recent year (2021 football season) shows a $10 million surplus from football after a $5 million charge for CMS debt. So $15 million net revenue without it.
Ticket sales of $6 million are well below the $9.4 million for Dykes' last season or the $12.2 million for the 2010 season. So a lot of room for improvement with just a more exciting product.
I'm not sure why $13 million in sponsorships from Learfield (mostly?) is considered "non-program specific." I don't see how we get that if we don't play football.
To me it looks like football is providing at least $25 million after variable expenses to fund operations.
However, we will take a ($10 million?) hit this year in the ACC. We can easily add $5 million in ticket sales with a better product and better marketing. But at 2021 sales, with reduced media revenue, take away Learfield and increase travel expenses and it is closer to break even.
Now if you take into account the women's sports football has to support to satisfy Title IX, we could be entering a period where football is seen as a losing proposition.
We cannot afford Wilcox's buyout, but we need that additional $5 million in ticket sales that will come with greater success. Supporting the NIL program just makes good sense.
FWIW, I would not count on increasing football attendance to where it was 15-20 years ago. There are at least a dozen games on TV every Saturday now, everyone is glued to their phones and other devices, and the Bay Area is pro sports oriented. The Oregon Ducks are "the" football franchise in their state; the Bay has the 49ers and also large followings for every local other pro sport. IMO the model for better athletic department finances is not reliance on ticket sales. It needs to be more like Stanford or SMU, where the athletic donations are high enough that the finances are healthy even if you sell only 20,000 tickets. Hopefully you sell a lot more, but you don't base your financial model on that.
I disagree with the premise that football doesn't currently make a profit. If it doesn't, why the heck is the AD transferring millions out of the football fund to fund other programs? The subsidies that occur to athletics are due to other programs amassing huge deficits. Nor does it explain why athletics transferred land a below fair market value to Campus in exchange for debt relief. That said, in the brave new world where athletes are being paid, that premise probably will be correct at some point, as income to football players increase and football coaching salaries continue to arise, if the cost of NIL was internalized to the athletic departments, and not paid by third party donors. The current P4 football structure is not sustainable, and non-revenue sports need to be self-sufficient if they want to survive. Absent some form of federal legislation, a great day of reckoning is coming.BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
wifeisafurd said:I disagree with the premise that football doesn't currently make a profit. If it doesn't, why the heck is the AD transferring millions out of the football fund to fund other programs? The subsidies that occur to athletics are due to other programs amassing huge deficits. Nor does it explain why athletics transferred land a below fair market value to Campus in exchange for debt relief. That said, in the brave new world where athletes are being paid, that premise probably will be correct at some point, as income to football players increase and football coaching salaries continue to arise, if the cost of NIL was internalized to the athletic departments, and not paid by third party donors. The current P4 football structure is not sustainable, and non-revenue sports need to be self-sufficient if they want to survive. Absent some form of federal legislation, a great day of reckoning is coming.BearSD said:College football is subsidized at all but about 20 schools. Don't confuse revenue generation with net profit. For example, is football revenue paying off Cal's football stadium debt? Hell no. That massive cost is a deficit paid by UC Berkeley and the regents, not by football revenue.MrGPAC said:
Somewhat tangential here, rev generating sports athletes should NOT count as part of title 9, be it mens or womens. Getting to use a student athlete as a means of generating massive revenue for the school is extremely different from giving an opportunity for your general student body to compete.
You could probably divorce football from Title IX if you divorced it entirely from "educational opportunities". Don't give scholarships to football players, and don't require them to be enrolled as students. Don't pay players, coaches, or staff with university funds. Let donors set up a corporation separate from the university ("Golden Bears Football, Inc."). The corporation could lease the use of CMS at a fair-market price, pay for all of the utilities, security, and other services they use, and license the use of university names and logos for a fair-market price. Make it entirely arms-length, like a coffee shop or restaurant that leases space on campus and operates independently. Every "power conference" school can do the same, and NCAA rules can be changed to accommodate these independent, for-profit football programs.
JK is in violation of the conditions of state employment, although his Caldecott address circumvents it.Bear Naked Ladies said:I actually didn't know this. This guy that we're paying millions of dollars to doesn't even live near the job that pays him millions of dollars?.bluehenbear said:
Poor Jim,
All these outside influences (conferences imploding, coaching vacancies, audits, lawsuits, and investigations) forcing him to stop telecommuting from Colorado and making him do his fscking job.
long path to a nothing burgerCal Junkie said:JK is in violation of the conditions of state employment, although his Caldecott address circumvents it.Bear Naked Ladies said:I actually didn't know this. This guy that we're paying millions of dollars to doesn't even live near the job that pays him millions of dollars?.bluehenbear said:
Poor Jim,
All these outside influences (conferences imploding, coaching vacancies, audits, lawsuits, and investigations) forcing him to stop telecommuting from Colorado and making him do his fscking job.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CAStateWorkers/comments/104n9za/do_you_need_to_be_a_ca_state_resident_in_order_to/
This - most likely he spends slightly more than half the year in CO if he is trying to shield his other income streams from CA income tax. His AD pay is going to be taxed in CA.gobears15 said:I'm still not convinced that's the case. The university has payroll information for out of state employees directing them to complete an out-of-state tax withholding form.calumnus said:WalterSobchak said:Yeah he's definitely paying CA income tax on his CA source income. It's his side hustle income he's trying to protect from CA rates by domiciling in CO. We've been around this block before in another thread. Not sure why the misconception persists.Goobear said:
Well if he is on a W-2 than most likely he is getting taxed in CA. I doubt he gets paid on a 1099 or his enumeration is paid to an entity he owns....
Thanks for the correction, I don't remember seeing it in another thread (there have been many).
At least California is getting back a small portion of the $millions he is stealing from the state's taxpayers.
Also, there's a UC system-wide payroll info PDF that goes over the tax handling of out-of-state workers in plain language. See page 3:Knowlton is in the second category. He is a non-resident who sometimes works from California. The portion of his income earned in California is subject to California income tax. The rest is not.Quote:
The Out of State Income Tax Withholding form assists Payroll Services in determining the tax withholding for an individual who works and lives in a state other than California.
Employees are categorized as one of the following:
- California tax residents - subject to tax withholding on their world wide income regardless of where the work is performed.
- California non-residents who work in California - subject to tax withholding on their portion of income that is earned in the state of California.
- Non-residents working and living outside California - not subject to California tax withholding. They may be subject to state income tax withholding in the state in which they are working.
rkt88edmo said:This - most likely he spends slightly more than half the year in CO if he is trying to shield his other income streams from CA income tax. His AD pay is going to be taxed in CA.gobears15 said:I'm still not convinced that's the case. The university has payroll information for out of state employees directing them to complete an out-of-state tax withholding form.calumnus said:WalterSobchak said:Yeah he's definitely paying CA income tax on his CA source income. It's his side hustle income he's trying to protect from CA rates by domiciling in CO. We've been around this block before in another thread. Not sure why the misconception persists.Goobear said:
Well if he is on a W-2 than most likely he is getting taxed in CA. I doubt he gets paid on a 1099 or his enumeration is paid to an entity he owns....
Thanks for the correction, I don't remember seeing it in another thread (there have been many).
At least California is getting back a small portion of the $millions he is stealing from the state's taxpayers.
Also, there's a UC system-wide payroll info PDF that goes over the tax handling of out-of-state workers in plain language. See page 3:Knowlton is in the second category. He is a non-resident who sometimes works from California. The portion of his income earned in California is subject to California income tax. The rest is not.Quote:
The Out of State Income Tax Withholding form assists Payroll Services in determining the tax withholding for an individual who works and lives in a state other than California.
Employees are categorized as one of the following:
- California tax residents - subject to tax withholding on their world wide income regardless of where the work is performed.
- California non-residents who work in California - subject to tax withholding on their portion of income that is earned in the state of California.
- Non-residents working and living outside California - not subject to California tax withholding. They may be subject to state income tax withholding in the state in which they are working.
I am rusty on tax matters, but it is very possible spending time living in Colorado would allow him to apportion his UC income to Colorado, using the lower Colorado tax rate on his apportioned income.philly1121 said:Appalling. How the State lets him get away with that is beyond me. He has no investment here.calumnus said:Bear Naked Ladies said:I actually didn't know this. This guy that we're paying millions of dollars to doesn't even live near the job that pays him millions of dollars?.bluehenbear said:
Poor Jim,
All these outside influences (conferences imploding, coaching vacancies, audits, lawsuits, and investigations) forcing him to stop telecommuting from Colorado and making him do his fscking job.
He and his wife live, pay taxes, vote and donate our money to the local Republican Party in Colorado Springs (and Colorado generally) where he also invests in real estate with his sons. Apparently he is renting a place on the other side of the Caldecott for when he can't do zoom calls and he has to be in Berkeley.
