End state relationship with and tax breaks for ESPN NOW

[ruskin]

I hope you're right about the "inevitability" of realignment.
Oh well. You the CT taxpayer (I assume) have no problem with a company that gets state aid cutting the state U. at the knees. I the CT taxpayer have a major problem with it. Just hope whatever business you're in doesn't get steamrolled by another company getting a hand from the state.

 

[J187Money]

I will put it simply. ESPN as part of Disney exists to generate returns for its shareholders. It's job is to maximize revenues and minimize expenses. That's it.

Sometimes you invest in the short term to generate better long term returns. Sometimes you capitalize on market dislocations.

It doesn't "feel" right. But if your paycheck depended on making those decisions you would do the same thing.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I haven't read every post so someone might have touched on this.
Forget about the lost revenue to UConn. Thats Chump change compared to the lost revenue to the state of Connecticut by a diminished UConn athletic Department.
The loss of business in downtown Hartford during basketball and the maintainence of a partially full state owned Rent .
The state gets a cut on every ticket sold,every car rented every meal eaten etc..

Its not only UCONN but every tax payer in the state who will shoulder this revenue loss.
This has potential to become is a huge political issue. Especially if ESPN is a player.

Start with your state legislature
Political hay can be and should be made on this issue.

 

[huskymedic]

Shouldn't some of this ire be directed to NBC Sports who is also receiving tax breaks. I mean, they were the one with the low ball offer that only required ESPN to match. So if you want to take away everything from ESPN, take away everything from NBC Sports too. Throw in the hedge fund, Jackson Labs and every other tax break for jobs while you are at it just because they must have some blame in all of this too.

Pretty much... Hell - lets cut off the Yankees if the Pinstripe Bowl goes by the wayside!

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130311/PRINTEDITION/303089975

"Some are even calling Connecticut the sports media capital of the world with ESPN, NBC Sports, Yes Network and Hartford's fledgling golf lifestyle channel Back9Network, now calling the Nutmeg State home."

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I will put it simply. ESPN as part of Disney exists to generate returns for its shareholders. It's job is to maximize revenues and minimize expenses. That's it.

Sometimes you invest in the short term to generate better long term returns. Sometimes you capitalize on market dislocations.

It doesn't "feel" right. But if your paycheck depended on making those decisions you would do the same thing.

Wow. I had no idea how business worked. Thanks.

Back to the argument. Why should state taxpayers pick one business out of a hat and give it $100MM? Why not take the billions of targeted tax breaks given to favored corporations and just make everyone's taxes lower? Funny how all these Blumenthal and Malloy haters never thought of that.

 

[businesslawyer]

No, they don't.

For what it's worth, I fully disagree with this. As a part owner of a business. I think you are just as over the top in the other direction. Tax breaks should cause state and private parties to be working cooperatively.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

For what it's worth, I fully disagree with this. As a part owner of a business. I think you are just as over the top in the other direction. Tax breaks should cause state and private parties to be working cooperatively.

They are working cooperatively. The state is providing them tax breaks and ESPN is rewarding that by being a major employer and taxpayer. It is not their responsibility to look out for the best interests of UConn. It is their responsibility to look out for the best interests of Disney's shareholders. I get it, people are angry that UConn was left out in the cold, but most of this vitriol aimed towards ESPN just seems like fans desperately searching for someone to blame for our situation.

 

[whaler11]

There's a lot of infrastructure in Bristol that would not be cheap to replicate elsewhere.

ESPN should be asked/pushed to do something to truly help UConn. Doesn't have to be confrontational, but the words "anti-trust" being used wouldn't hurt.

You guys saying this realize another state would pay to replicate their infrastructure to have them right? States are playing for keeps to attract high profile jobs.

 

[whaler11]

For what it's worth, I fully disagree with this. As a part owner of a business. I think you are just as over the top in the other direction. Tax breaks should cause state and private parties to be working cooperatively.

This is true. The disconnect for some is the level of control ESPN has. They don't control Florida State or Boston College.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This is true. The disconnect for some is the level of control ESPN has. They don't control Florida State or Boston College.

Let's go back to the summer of 2011. The ACC has a 10 year contract that is suddenly way below market. The only way to reopen that contract is with ESPN's sole consent. In Whaler's world, ESPN has absolutely no influence in that situation, and the people with the long-term below market deal have all the power. Got it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You guys saying this realize another state would pay to replicate their infrastructure to have them right? States are playing for keeps to attract high profile jobs.

Can you show me a single study that shows that targeted tax breaks to specific corporations are anything other than a giant money loser for the states providing them?

 

[whaler11]

Can you show me a single study that shows that targeted tax breaks to specific corporations are anything other than a giant money loser for the states providing them?

Classic Waylon. Who said they were a good idea. I'm just saying if you don't think another state would cover their cost to move to get them it's naive.

 

[J187Money]

Wow. I had no idea how business worked. Thanks.

Back to the argument. Why should state taxpayers pick one business out of a hat and give it $100MM? Why not take the billions of targeted tax breaks given to favored corporations and just make everyone's taxes lower? Funny how all these Blumenthal and Malloy haters never thought of that.

Not advocating they should. And I'd be quite happy if we revoked the tax breaks. But the tax breaks have been given. Now ESPN should not act in what it feels is its own best interest?

I'm pretty sure if the tax breaks were given specifically in exchange for preferential treatment for UCONN it would be illegal anyway. If it was in writing.

And I'm the last guy you need to fight with over the tax code and targeted breaks. All of it is just a veiled form of corruption.

 

[whaler11]

Let's go back to the summer of 2011. The ACC has a 10 year contract that is suddenly way below market. The only way to reopen that contract is with ESPN's sole consent. In Whaler's world, ESPN has absolutely no influence in that situation, and the people with the long-term below market deal have all the power. Got it.

You do realize that the deal being below market value was a problem for ESPN correct? Being the only league they own the rights for across the board underpaying them put the enterprise at immediate risk due to the Big 12 needing teams.

You must remember when you went on and on about FSU to the Big 12 being a done deal right?

They don't own the votes - they can't make Boston College or Florida State select who they want no matter how many times people on the Boneyard say they can.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Classic Waylon. Who said they were a good idea. I'm just saying if you don't think another state would cover their cost to move to get them it's naive.

Then why hasn't another state done it? Why doesn't every company in the state get millions in tax breaks, because they could all move too, right?

 

[whaler11]

Then why hasn't another state done it? Why doesn't every company in the state get millions in tax breaks, because they could all move too, right?

Well they would have to want to move for one... And you know they didn't get tax breaks for threatening to move.

Florida's governor just asked to increase their budget for this very use to $278 million in their next budget.

Um other companies do get tax breaks for moving or adding jobs in CT. Of course you know that you are just being a jackass and attempting to argue that anyone is supporting them rather than just acknowledging their existence.

 

[ruskin]

I'm pretty sure if the tax breaks were given specifically in exchange for preferential treatment for UCONN it would be illegal anyway.

ESPN lending a hand to UConn does not equal "preferential" treatment. ESPN gave the University of Texas "preferential" treatment with the Longhorn Network. Granted lots of $$ changed hands. But if ESPN invested 1/1000th of the effort it put into its business partner UT with its business partner the state of CT this would not be going the way it is.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Let's go back to the summer of 2011. The ACC has a 10 year contract that is suddenly way below market. The only way to reopen that contract is with ESPN's sole consent. In Whaler's world, ESPN has absolutely no influence in that situation, and the people with the long-term below market deal have all the power. Got it.

When did he ever say ESPN had absolutely no control. He said they couldn't control the teams that were our roadblocks to the ACC.

 

[ruskin]

I get it, people are angry that UConn was left out in the cold, but most of this vitriol aimed towards ESPN just seems like fans desperately searching for someone to blame for our situation.

Nothing "desperate" about this at all. The state of CT is subsidizing an entity which at best has not lifted a finger to help UConn, and has played at least a minor and likely major role in UConn's annual TV revenue going from a possible $14 million to $1.8 million.

While we're add it, why don't we just add that $12.2 million loss to the subsidy, Dove? Oh wait, it is something to scoff at. Got it. ESPN is doing us the favor by accepting this pittance.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

ESPN lending a hand to UConn does not equal "preferential" treatment. ESPN gave the University of Texas "preferential" treatment with the Longhorn Network. Granted lots of changed hands. But if ESPN invested 1/1000th of the effort it put into its business partner UT with its business partner the state of CT this would not be going the way it is.

How did they give UT preferential treatment? If I remember correctly, UT football is the single most valuable college sports program in the country. There's a reason they have their own network and it's because both them and ESPN can make a ton of money off of it. Stop being ridiculous.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Nothing "desperate" about this at all. The state of CT is subsidizing an entity which at best has not lifted a finger to help UConn, and has played at least a minor and likely major role in UConn's annual TV revenue going from a possible $14 million to $1.8 million.

While we're add it, why don't we just add that $12.2 million loss to the subsidy, Dove? Oh wait, it is something to scoff at. Got it. ESPN is doing us the favor by accepting this pittance.

Yes, $12.2 million for a couple of years is absolutely minor compared to ESPN's economic impact in CT. And all of your complaining is predicated on the assumption that ESPN could single-handedly reach in and change what's going on, when we already know that it was some of the teams in the ACC that said "no" to UConn's membership.

 

[ruskin]

How did they give UT preferential treatment? If I remember correctly, UT football is the single most valuable college sports program in the country. There's a reason they have their own network and it's because both them and ESPN can make a ton of money off of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Dove, stay away from the personal stuff. That's twice now. You're going to the mat pretty hard for ESPN. Do you work there?

UT has a business arrangement with ESPN. On a smaller scale, Connecticut has a business arrangement with ESPN. If ESPN was passively (or otherwise) undercutting another Texas entity I'm sure the folks down there wouldn't stand for it.

You're on a UConn fan message board consistently saying that because ESPN is a major state employer it is free to do whatever it wants even if it directly or indirectly harms the future of the sports program of the state university (which is why this board exists), and taxpayers should continue to subsidize ESPN lest the jobs move away. Some might say that is a ridiculous opinion. It sure has the feel of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[businesslawyer]

This is true. The disconnect for some is the level of control ESPN has. They don't control Florida State or Boston College.

They do not control FSU or BC. But what DeFilippo said publicly is enough to get by summary judgment and get UConn a trial in front of a jury if they want it.

 

[ruskin]

They do not control FSU or BC. But what DeFilippo said publicly is enough to get by summary judgment and get UConn a trial in front of a jury if they want it.

I would pay money to see Flipper in the dock

 

[uconnric]

[quote="You're on a UConn fan message board consistently saying that because ESPN is a major state employer it is free to do whatever it wants even if it directly or indirectly harms the future of the sports program of the state university (which is why this board exists), and taxpayers should continue to subsidize ESPN lest the jobs move away. Some might say that is a ridiculous opinion. It sure has the feel of Stockholm Syndrome.[/quote]
Why don't you just drive down to Bristol and picket ESPN? That way you can perhaps get this out of your system and spare us this useless drivel. Maybe they'll put you on Sportscenter.