End state relationship with and tax breaks for ESPN NOW

[WhereistheDove?]

In everyone's need to make this simple, and make ESPN either an angle or a devil, this is a huge overstatement. When you have a contractual relationship with an entity, as ESPN did with the Big East, there are issues in cooperating with another entity with which you have a contractual relationship (the ACC) in actions that could reasonably be expected to harm the other party with whom you have a relationship. It's called the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

'These are close, complicated issues that shouldn't allow this kind of dialogue where one side calls the other idiotic for disagreeing. (Not that I expect that will stop it.)

First, I'm not making ESPN out to be an angel. I'm making them out to be a corporation. And isn't this all still predicated on ESPN being responsible for all of this? Does anyone really believe that the conferences were clueless to the huge potential financial benefits of increasing their size and TV footprint until ESPN set the wheels in motion? I'm also a little curious (because I'm not a lawyer), how a lawsuit over that would actually work seeing as I don't think ESPN's hypothetical actions actually prevented UConn from receiving its benefits from the expiring TV deal. I'm actually curious to hear your opinion on that.

Regardless, this still doesn't have anything to do with the overall point. The whole thread is about pressuring ESPN into giving us preferential treatment due to their relationship with the state. So if we're making this argument about harming another party, couldn't you say the same if ESPN had somehow forced the ACC to take UConn, when they obviously decided that there were financially better options (I know that's not your point, but trying to tie this in to the overall thread).

 

[ruskin]

I've said nothing personal so please don't accuse me of that (especially when you come back and call my opinion ridiculous as well).

"Stop being hysterical" "Stop being ridiculous" "Some might say that opinion is ridiculous". Which one is not the personal shot? And you haven't answered whether you work at ESPN or if your business is tied to them, which would make your point understandable since you have a personal stake.

Comparing ESPN's relationship with a huge college athletics program to their relationship with the state of CT is apples to oranges.

How so? You eagerly cite capitalism as the driving the force in all of this. Money is changing hands. And BTW, UConn's program isn't Texas-sized, but it's not exactly a lemonade stand either ($68M budget).

Also, don't forget that Longhorn Network was one of the major issues that led to Texas A&M jumping ship, but amazingly I haven't seen the state of Texas ending their relationship with ESPN or public figures calling for their head.

Pretty sure the A&M people in Texas are pretty happy where they landed. Don't think you'd be saying that if they were in same boat as SMU or Houston.

ESPN's tax breaks do not have (and never have) anything to do with UConn or its athletics TV revenue.

The point of the OP, which we're never going to agree on. You see the subsidies as a pure money-for-jobs tradeoff. I don't.

In the grand scheme of things, it's also a very minor and inconsequential thing when compared to the goals those tax breaks are trying to accomplish.

The amount of UConn's lost TV revenue this coming year is roughly equal to the tax breaks ESPN is receiving. Why is ESPN accepting the $$ if that money is so "minor and inconsequential"? Are they doing it to make us feel good?

And again, what leads you to believe that ESPN had the power to sway BC or FSU? Your whole argument is predicated on that.

The words that will go on Flipper's headstone "ESPN told us what to do."

 

[WhereistheDove?]

"Some might say that opinion is ridiculous". You slightly changing the wording does nothing to change the message, which was EXACTLY the same as what you called a personal attack (which were actually attacks at your point). And I don't work at ESPN, not the same industry, never have, and probably never will. I actually think they're a pretty scummy organization based off of a lot of the things that came out in that tell-all book (or at least they were a scummy organization), but this is not one of the things that will put them in a negative light for me.

How are the UT and CT deals not the same? Is this a serious question? One is a college, where ESPN has a directly negotiated deal to operate their TV network. The other is a state, where they negotiated tax breaks so that ESPN would bring jobs and tax revenue into the state. Please provide me with one thing that says that part of that deal was to provide preferential treatment to UConn. You do that and I will withdraw all of my arguments.

The amount of lost revenue may be roughly equal to the tax breaks, but the amount of ESPN's value to the state economy between jobs and tax revenue is staggering in comparison that $10-12 million.

You still have yet to provide me one thing other than opinion that says that ESPN had or has the sway to affect the decisions of BC and FSU to keep us out of the ACC. If you have nothing, just admit you have nothing.

 

[ruskin]

I'll start from the bottom. The freaking athletic director of Boston College said "ESPN told us what to do". The fact he got the equivalent of a horse's head in his bed and backed off doesn't convince me that his first statement is untrue

I've looked for data on ESPN's actual economic impact in Connecticut and can't find it (not even in the First Five press releases). Without seeing the numbers I assume it's large but I do recall seeing stories from biased advocacy groups (ConnPIRG, etc) that the media's presence in CT is overstated. So "staggering" could be -- could be -- overstating it.

As I said, the UT-ESPN deal and State of CT-ESPN transactions are similar in the most basic way - one entity giving money to another for something in return. Sure, the size and scope are different.

I keep hearing "preferential" treatment. Preferential over who/what? Do the blind resume thing with all the teams not currently in a Big Five conference. There isn't one out there with a better resume than UConn's in all ways - in terms of on-field success, budget, facilities. If ESPN where in Massachusetts and it acted to get UMass into the ACC, then you could say preferential because UMass would be jumping the line. UConn just needs a final push over the finish line. Our neighbors whose property taxes we're helping pay aren't. That's the point.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You realize the stuff whaler is talking about is happening this very second with CT companies? In case you missed it, Stag Arms (gun company) will leave the state if the Malloy gun proposals go through. States like Mississippi, and Oklahoma, have promised to pay them relocation costs, infrastructure costs, tax breaks, and up front cash. Blumenthal came out speaking harshly of the other states because of this.

Ill try to find a link.

Are you saying no company will stay in Connecticut unless taxpayers hand them cash to be here? It sounds like it.

I will go on the record as saying that any state that wants to give me $100 million can have me. I am pretty sure I could get my company to move for $100 million too. We should all move to Oklahoma and Mississippi, because they have a magical money machine where they can just hand out cash to companies.

Maybe the boneyard should form a company, offer to relocate to Oklahoma, and get paid a few hundred grand a piece for a couple of years to post on the Internet.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Give me another example, anywhere in the economy, where on entity gives another entity $100 million with almost no strings attached.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Are you saying no company will stay in Connecticut unless taxpayers hand them cash to be here? It sounds like it.

I will go on the record as saying that any state that wants to give me $100 million can have me. I am pretty sure I could get my company to move for $100 million too. We should all move to Oklahoma and Mississippi, because they have a magical money machine where they can just hand out cash to companies.

Maybe the boneyard should form a company, offer to relocate to Oklahoma, and get paid a few hundred grand a piece for a couple of years to post on the Internet.

That's not what he's saying at all and you know that. You're intentionally changing his argument to make it seem absurd. The point is, and he even provided proof, that CT is not the only state that gives tax breaks to attract big business, and then the assumption that no one would be willing to fork over some cash to attract a company like ESPN is just plainly untrue. And you know what, when you run a company pulling in over $10 billion in revenue and worth 4x that, I'm sure there will be plenty of states lining up to give you some tax breaks. You do understand that the value of a company like ESPN to the state is way higher than a small business, right?

 

[zls44]

The words that will go on Flipper's headstone "ESPN told us what to do."

It's amazing how people think that quote is at all accurate. Gene is an ignorant blowhard. That isn't proof, its a windmill in the distance.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

That's not what he's saying at all and you know that. You're intentionally changing repeating his argument to make it seem absurd. The point is, and he even provided proof, that CT is not the only state that gives tax breaks to attract big business, and then the assumption that no one would be willing to fork over some cash to attract a company like ESPN is just plainly untrue. And you know what, when you run a company pulling in over $10 billion in revenue and worth 4x that, I'm sure there will be plenty of states lining up to give you some tax breaks. You do understand that the value of a company like ESPN to the state is way higher than a small business, right?

There. Fixed.

Ah, so only big companies should get tax breaks. Do you realize that over 100% of job creation in our economy comes from companies under 500 employees? Big companies actually shrink year over year. So you want to subsidize big, shrinking companies because they are...big?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It's amazing how people think that quote is at all accurate. Gene is an ignorant blowhard. That isn't proof, its a windmill in the distance.

Nope. It is gospel. You are wrong.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I have a test I think you should all try. Take a customer that has provided your company with $100 million of business the last 2-3 years, then do something that will cost them tens of millions more in losses over the next 10 years. Let me know how it works out for you.

 

[noeynox]

you ever stop to think that maybe there were strings attached and they had nothing to do with UConn athletics?

Do I think espn can save UCONN? Yes. Do I think they specifically set out to destroy us ? No.

By the way do you doubt that there are states that have vowed to take CT gun manufacturers with open arms, while promising tax brakes, relocation costs etc? States are lining up tripping over themselves for these businesses.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

you ever stop to think that maybe there were strings attached and they had nothing to do with UConn athletics?

Do I think espn can save UCONN? Yes. Do I think they specifically set out to destroy us ? No.

By the way do you doubt that there are states that have vowed to take CT gun manufacturers with open arms, while promising tax brakes, relocation costs etc? States are lining up tripping over themselves for these businesses.

Show me a study where states that provide these subsidies ever recoup the investment. Just one will do.

Who decides which companies get the subsidies? Why can't my company get $100MM? ESPN offered to add something like 100 jobs, right? So the state paid about $1MM a job. My company will not move to Oklahoma if the state pays us $800k a job. Sounds fair, right?

 

[noeynox]

Also never said no company will stay in CT without tax breaks and concessions, but if you don't think some state will at least tempt espn with a,worthwhile package your fooling yourself.

You attribute a statement I never made to conjure up an opposing argument. Wtf.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I'll start from the bottom. The freaking athletic director of Boston College said "ESPN told us what to do". The fact he got the equivalent of a horse's head in his bed and backed off doesn't convince me that his first statement is untrue

I've looked for data on ESPN's actual economic impact in Connecticut and can't find it (not even in the First Five press releases). Without seeing the numbers I assume it's large but I do recall seeing stories from biased advocacy groups (ConnPIRG, etc) that the media's presence in CT is overstated. So "staggering" could be -- could be -- overstating it.

As I said, the UT-ESPN deal and State of CT-ESPN transactions are similar in the most basic way - one entity giving money to another for something in return. Sure, the size and scope are different.

I keep hearing "preferential" treatment. Preferential over who/what? Do the blind resume thing with all the teams not currently in a Big Five conference. There isn't one out there with a better resume than UConn's in all ways - in terms of on-field success, budget, facilities. If ESPN where in Massachusetts and it acted to get UMass into the ACC, then you could say preferential because UMass would be jumping the line. UConn just needs a final push over the finish line. Our neighbors whose property taxes we're helping pay aren't. That's the point.

“We didn’t want them in,’’ he said. “It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.’’ - That was the other comment at the same time. You're using an ambiguous comment to say that ESPN told BC and FSU to block UConn. Again, you have yet to prove to me that this wasn't those schools acting on their own (not sure why they would only tell those schools to oppose). As far as ESPN's economic impact. They employ thousands of people in the state, I'm sure they pay a far greater amount that $10-12 million per year in state and local taxes, so yes, their economic impact dwarfs that number any way you split it.

So me buying a candy bar from the 7-11 down the street and those deals are all similar in the same basic way. That doesn't change the fact that in reality they are still VERY different transactions that really can't be compared.

You're complaining that we didn't get preferential treatment over the other schools taken by the big conferences. If those were the better financial moves, why should ESPN pressure the conference into taking something less. Believe me, these conferences aren't oblivious to their best interest. Everyone is waiting for a couple of key cogs to move (ND, Clemson, FSU, UNC, etc.). Sooner or later it will be in their best interest, obviously at this point they don't believe it is to take UConn.

 

[ruskin]

It's amazing how people think that quote is at all accurate. Gene is an ignorant blowhard. That isn't proof, its a windmill in the distance.

This is like Barkley saying he was misquoted in his own biography. DeFilippo himself acknowledged he said it, but, as an ignornant blowhard would, then contradicted hismelf.

 

[Chuck]

There have been stories written by legitimate press that show that tax incentives are a net loser for states. The (usually) slight increase in job creation/savings is offset by the significant loss in revenue.

I'm assuming the tax breaks became popular for two reasons: i) short term job gains that politicians can use for reelection; and ii) the assumption that once a company was well entrenched, they'd stay even as taxes creep back. Unfortunately, we live in a much more mobile world so I don't think (ii) works anymore. Political short-sightedness, however, will always exist.

 

[06029]

Give me another example, anywhere in the economy, where on entity gives another entity $100 million with almost no strings attached.

And are you really so dense that you can't find an obvious no strings attached example? How about the first round of TARP from Bush to the banks? That had zero strings attached. It was a capital infusion. They still can't account for where all the money went.

In your mind, tax breaks/loans tied to adding jobs over a very specific time frame is no string attached. Maybe you should do some research before you make statements that are blatantly false. The deal requires a minimum of 200 new jobs. There are other strings too, but the details will just confuse you. And the maximum amount of the deal is $24.7 million. I know those decimal points confuse you and you like to move them to suit your rants. But much like your inflated views of the new TV contract in 2011 and 2012, you missed the mark with how much this is costing the state versus its benefit. Just to be factually clear on the amounts involved:
Cigna, Bloomfield: $71 million
ESPN, Bristol: $25 million
NBC Sports, Stamford: $20 million
Alexion, New Haven: $51 million
CareCentrix, Hartford: $24 million

 

[WhereistheDove?]

There. Fixed.

Ah, so only big companies should get tax breaks. Do you realize that over 100% of job creation in our economy comes from companies under 500 employees? Big companies actually shrink year over year. So you want to subsidize big, shrinking companies because they are...big?

No, you didn't fix it, because he didn't say that all companies would leave without tax incentives. Not once. Ever. That is pure fabrication on your part in an attempt to delegitimize his argument.

And no, I don't think (nor did I ever say.... Do you see a trend here?) that only big companies should get tax breaks. Small businesses as a whole are incredibly important to the economy. But one small business by itself is worth very little compared to ESPN's CT operations. Let's talk about your hypothetical 100 person company you mentioned. Do you understand how a $40 billion company that has profits of hundreds of millions each year and employs thousands of people in CT would have a greater economic impact and be more likely to be lured by other states than one that employs 100 in CT and makes a fraction of that? If not, then you are way over your head in this conversation.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

No, you didn't fix it, because he didn't say that all companies would leave without tax incentives. Not once. Ever. That is pure fabrication on your part in an attempt to delegitimize his argument.

And no, I don't think (nor did I ever say.... Do you see a trend here?) that only big companies should get tax breaks. Small businesses as a whole are incredibly important to the economy. But one small business by itself is worth very little compared to ESPN's CT operations. Let's talk about your hypothetical 100 person company you mentioned. Do you understand how a $40 billion company that has profits of hundreds of millions each year and employs thousands of people in CT would have a greater economic impact and be more likely to be lured by other states than one that employs 100 in CT and makes a fraction of that? If not, then you are way over your head in this conversation.

Every subsidy that the state provides to one company is the same as a tax on all the others. Why is the State of Connecticut picking winners in the economy?

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I have a test I think you should all try. Take a customer that has provided your company with $100 million of business the last 2-3 years, then do something that will cost them tens of millions more in losses over the next 10 years. Let me know how it works out for you.

Or say I have two customers. And hypothetically, they're both worth $10 million a year to me. Now, I have two options going forward. One provides me with the same payout from both. The other provides me with $20 million a year from company A and $5 million per from company B. Sure, I'm making less of company B, but together I'm still making more money. Which do you think is better? I assure you, the decisions that are in ESPN's control, are being made for their self-interest, not to damage their bottom line like you're implying.

 

[J187Money]

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.

Because they did the math and figured they could make money from UT. They are in the business to make money. They will help if it is in their best interest. With regards to tax incentives, the state needs to do their own math. It could still be worth it to the state even if they don't lift a finger to help UCONN.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Every subsidy that the state provides to one company is the same as a tax on all the others. Why is the State of Connecticut picking winners in the economy?

Let's say you go to the supermarket and buy a bottle of soda for a $1, but I'm having a big "ESPN is the Devil" party and I work a deal to buy 100 bottles at $0.85 a piece (please don't look to0 far into this example and just assume that they've cut their margin in half), would you understand why I got a favorable deal in that situation compared to you?

 

[ruskin]

If ESPN really wanted UConn to be in a Big Five conference it would have happened by now. I'll give Dove the benefit of the doubt that they didn't explicitly tell the ACC to add UConn in 2011 and in fact might have been surprised by Flipper's obstinance. But once that became clear they should have exercised one of other zillion back-channel avenues available to them.

I can only imagine what our friends in the South would think of this. "You gave them tax breaks. . . .and you're STILL SOL!!?!??!!??!!?. .. . ."

 

[WhereistheDove?]

THE TAX BREAKS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH UCONN!

 

[ruskin]

"With regards to tax incentives, the state needs to do their own math. It could still be worth it to the state even if they don't lift a finger to help UCONN.

If Malloy and the gang in Hartford are cool with this -- that is, as long as ESPN employs a crapload of well-paid people, it's OK if they don't "lift a finger" on the CR front -- well, that lack of leadership and savvy negotiating means UConn will deserve whatever it gets. Which will be a crappy "front porch".

 

[huskymedic]

Show me a study where states that provide these subsidies ever recoup the investment. Just one will do.

How about an attestation?

"Since its 2006 inception, the state's film program has issued $302 million in tax credits, which has leveraged about $1 billion in production expenditures and created 15,000 jobs, state records show.
"I absolutely believe the film tax credits are working," said George Norfleet, director of the state's Office of Film, Television & Digital Media. "The industry, as a whole, is expanding and creating jobs, and that is exactly what the tax credits are meant to do."

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

If your business wants tax credits - get a lobbyist and go wander the LOB.

 

[CL82]

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.

Sure they can by saying well "School with criteria "X" is worth significantly more than schools without that criteria" If the money results in a meaningful net increase to each member of the league, we are likely to be in.

 

[whaler11]

Sure they can by saying well "School with criteria "X" is worth significantly more than schools without that criteria" If the money results in a meaningful net increase to each member of the league, we are likely to be in.

Do you realize how many incremental dollars you'd need to be worth to move the average rake in a 15-17 team league?

They took Louisville because Florida State thinks they have more credibility in football. Some of these things are conspiracies they are quite simple.

 

[J187Money]

If Malloy and the gang in Hartford are cool with this -- that is, as long as ESPN employs a crapload of well-paid people, it's OK if they don't "lift a finger" on the CR front -- well, that lack of leadership and savvy negotiating means UConn will deserve whatever it gets. Which will be a crappy "front porch".

That's one way to look at it.

And then people wonder how messes like Steubenville happen. Sports über alles.