Tedford, Barbour, "Big Donors" and $

2,980 Views | 11 Replies | Last: 12 yr ago by ColoradoBear
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
By now, it is clear that the vast majority of Cal fans want JT gone (preferably yesterday). On the other hand, his no-buyout contract is a huge impediment. Railing at Sandy Barbour for not "pulling the trigger" is pointless, because as I have posted before, this must be a strictly business decision. The athletic department must increase revenue and cut spending to reduce the campus contribution to $5 million by 2014 (it is currently between 8-10). Incurring a large salary hit for the football coach won't accomplish that. Thus, the argument for firing Tedford now is that the cost in lost ticket revenue and ESP seats will be greater than the cost of his contract. The problem here is that it is essentially betting on the come; without hard data (poor attendance, cancelled ESP pledges) it is hard to make that case convincingly. Because this is the first year back in CMS, the attendance may be somewhat inflated as well.

Obviously, contributions from donors will be needed to make up the cost of Tedford's salary as well as the salary of a new coach (and assistants). While some important Cal supporters are disgusted with Tedford, they may or may not be willing to make 7 figure contributions here. Remember, there are a plethora of needs the campus has--including especially undergraduate scholarships--and I would never fault a donor for choosing academics over athletics. We make what I consider a generous contribution to IA every year, but any additional donations go to specific academic needs, not football. Does this make me a "bad fan?" I hope that there are donors willing to step up, but I would never criticize anyone for how they choose to donate their own money.

I also believe that the criticism of Sandy for supporting Olympic sports is misplaced. The same posters who were furious when the announcement was made that baseball, rugby, etc. were to be cancelled are now complaining that not enough resources go into football. Let's face it: we are between a rock and a hard place, and as important as replacing Tedford is, it may be next to impossible in the short term. In that last statement, I hope I am wrong.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"The athletic department must increase revenue and cut spending to reduce the campus contribution to $5 million by 2014 (it is currently between 8-10). Incurring a large salary hit for the football coach won't accomplish that"

Since the buyout won't come from the athletic department, it won't affect it's revenue or lack there of.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
that's why I wrote it must come from donors.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor;841965506 said:

that's why I wrote it must come from donors.


Right, as opposed to what? That's never been a question.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaMajor;841965506 said:

that's why I wrote it must come from donors.


Sure it has to come from donors at this point. The question is whether Bruce Jenkins was actually talking to people who have that kind of coin when he wrote this article, because it sounds like they could be getting ready to act. But there is also a huge difference between ESP donors that pay $10k, $20k, even $50k per year and those who can come up with millions.

With the TV money coming in soon, and the new football postseason, it's very hard to believe that the athletic department can't meet the $5 million goal. Or even balance the budget. This being the first year, I could see the TV money is just not there yet because of startup costs and rights buybacks, but in 2014, the INCREASE in TV+bowl revenue should really be in the $20-30 million per year range per year. Even if $10 million of that is used to close the deficit from ~$15 million to $5 million, there should be some left, right?

The thing about the AD finances is that donations and other revenue are interchangeable to a large degree. If there were a buyout negotiated, it could be spread out over many years, so large donors would essentially shift their donations to funding the buyout for that time period instead of whatever else they would have donated to. And they can force that because they could also just stop donating and there would be the same hole in the finances.

Now this is just personal opinion, but if the Big Game goes badly, and it could go really badly, that might get the ball rolling. As bad as stanford looks at times, they have absolutely killed both barkley and price, and with our OL and slow releasing QB, I can't see it turning out too well.

Another point re the money - DTV has about 3 million customers in the P12 footprint and reports are that Scott is asking ~$0.80 per sub per month. If you split that between the 12 teams in the league, that's ~ $2.4 million per year per school.
Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well it does seem that it's easier to spend other people's money. I've been guilty of that as well over the years, though I try to do my part.

The real issue is that making statements such as "this just has to happen" and "we can't afford not to make this change" on a football message board doesn't create a single dollar to fix the problem. Our feelings and our wants don't create any obligation on behalf of the Goldman's or the Simpson's or the Haas' open up their check books. It's their money and they'll spend it as they want.

I'd ask every person on here who wants JT gone if they'd contribute a personally meaningful amount of money to the cause. If so, then someone who wants to proactively do something to precipitate a change should start soliciting pledges. If not, then it's just so much wind.

You get enough names and enough dollars on a list and you're going to have a lot more impact than booing our student athletes on the field (I know, you think you're booing JT, but I'll bet you a donut the players aren't really feeling that distinction) or not showing up to the games. Money talks.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear1;841965541 said:

Sure it has to come from donors at this point. The question is whether Bruce Jenkins was actually talking to people who have that kind of coin when he wrote this article, because it sounds like they could be getting ready to act. But there is also a huge difference between ESP donors that pay $10k, $20k, even $50k per year and those who can come up with millions.

With the TV money coming in soon, and the new football postseason, it's very hard to believe that the athletic department can't meet the $5 million goal. Or even balance the budget. This being the first year, I could see the TV money is just not there yet because of startup costs and rights buybacks, but in 2014, the INCREASE in TV+bowl revenue should really be in the $20-30 million per year range per year. Even if $10 million of that is used to close the deficit from ~$15 million to $5 million, there should be some left, right?

The thing about the AD finances is that donations and other revenue are interchangeable to a large degree. If there were a buyout negotiated, it could be spread out over many years, so large donors would essentially shift their donations to funding the buyout for that time period instead of whatever else they would have donated to. And they can force that because they could also just stop donating and there would be the same hole in the finances.

Now this is just personal opinion, but if the Big Game goes badly, and it could go really badly, that might get the ball rolling. As bad as stanford looks at times, they have absolutely killed both barkley and price, and with our OL and slow releasing QB, I can't see it turning out too well.

Another point re the money - DTV has about 3 million customers in the P12 footprint and reports are that Scott is asking ~$0.80 per sub per month. If you split that between the 12 teams in the league, that's ~ $2.4 million per year per school.


Ball is rolling. Plans being worked on, it will play out soon.
SonomaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear;841965551 said:

Ball is rolling. Plans being worked on, it will play out soon.


We all hope this is correct.

Any more info you can share?
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsaM: I am by no means an insider or major donor so I don't really know but it seems to me that the tone of this board shifted from the usual anti-JT refrain this off-season to a much more pointed and high caliber disgust after the season started. It seemed like much of that was coming from people that claim to be insiders, prior JT supporters and/or donors major and minor. The conversation has moved from abstract discussions form those without $$ to more specific plans from those that do have $$.

I would say that there are specific replacement coaches being targeted, $$ being harnessed and a consensus building that JTs coaching decisions are pretty poor and unfounded.

Did I get this right?
BearGeorge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear1;841965541 said:

...
Another point re the money - DTV has about 3 million customers in the P12 footprint and reports are that Scott is asking ~$0.80 per sub per month. If you split that between the 12 teams in the league, that's ~ $2.4 million per year per school.


What a shockingly small number. The previous reports I'd read suggested that DTV subscribers were in the ~20 million count range. So less than 1/6th (about 15% of DTV sub-base) of this base is in the 5 Western states representing the Pac-12? This only barely passes the smell test, considering that CA alone is nearly 12% of the US population. My 'back of the napkin' calculations shows that CA+WA+OR+AZ+UT (as if that's all that that are considered Pac-12 foot-print) = 18.3% of the US population.
Cal Geek
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear1;841965541 said:


Another point re the money - DTV has about 3 million customers in the P12 footprint and reports are that Scott is asking ~$0.80 per sub per month. If you split that between the 12 teams in the league, that's ~ $2.4 million per year per school.


Sounds like a lot to ask. DTV would probably have to raise their rates if they signed such an agreement. And while we Cal fans really want Pac12 on DTV (if use that provider), I would think DTV would be unwilling to raise rates for the few Cal fans they have. If fact, they have been reluctant so far, no dea has bee reached.
UrsaMajor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wish I knew. I know several "big donors" who are disgusted with the situation, but I have no idea if they are actually at the "here's x million" stage. I'm sure Sandy is planning for contingencies, but whether or not they are feasible remains an open question.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGeorge;841965728 said:

What a shockingly small number. The previous reports I'd read suggested that DTV subscribers were in the ~20 million count range. So less than 1/6th (about 15% of DTV sub-base) of this base is in the 5 Western states representing the Pac-12? This only barely passes the smell test, considering that CA alone is nearly 12% of the US population. My 'back of the napkin' calculations shows that CA+WA+OR+AZ+UT (as if that's all that that are considered Pac-12 foot-print) = 18.3% of the US population.


18% of 20 million is 3.6 million. If the offer is like the one Dish got, DTV doesn't have to put P12 in their most basic package (they both offer packages with ESPN and many of the national stations, but no local sports chanels). So it would be less than 3.6 subs million by a bit. Sure I forgot to add in the national customers who would be paying something like $.10 per month as part of the sports tier, but that amount of viewership at that rate does not amount to much anyway.

Point being was that TV negotiations are still in flux, so it's hard to say how hard it will be to balance the budget or meet targets like the $5 million. Just happens that a DTV deal could be about the same as our esteemed HC's salary. I'm not expecting a DTV deal, and it's really an aside to the JT conversation, but it's something to think about just to get a size on how much money we are talking about. If the department isn't expecting that money, and a DTV deal is done tomorrow.....
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.