Pitino: “That’s why next year, the only game we’re playing at Carnesecca is Connecticut. The rest, we’re gonna negotiate.”

[ConnHuskBask]

I'm sure you're right and he's wrong. I mean he's got way more information at his fingertips than you do, but you seem very certain. Very certain indeed....

Well, actually not all that certain since you've acknowledge that you're guessing.

Yes, the team that brought us the estimated $7.5M revenue shortfall with the non-existent Storrs football stadium has all the answers.

 

[CL82]

Yes, the team that brought us the estimated $7.5M revenue shortfall with the non-existent Storrs football stadium has all the answers.

No of course not. I mean he has ongoing financial information annual financials and experts that he accesses, etc. and you, well golly you have well none of that do you?

But I'm sure you're right and he's wrong.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

No of course not. I mean he has ongoing financial information annual financials and experts that he accesses, etc. and you, well golly you have well none of that do you?

But I'm sure you're right and he's wrong.

It's almost as if the numbers they feed to the media are portrayed in a manner that appears the most favorable to them!

But sure, let's hear more about the opportunity cost of playing football in Storrs as opposed to ya know, an actual football stadium that exists in reality in East Hartford.

 

[CL82]

It's almost as if the numbers they feed to the media are portrayed in a manner that appears the most favorable to them!

But sure, let's hear more about the opportunity cost of playing football in Storrs as opposed to ya know, an actual football stadium that exists in reality in East Hartford.

Yeah, exactly... except weren't we talking about the XL center charging above market rates for Connecticut to lease the stadium and not about building am football stadium in Storrs?

So, you're accusing the University and the Athletic Director of lying to the media? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm sure you're right.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Yeah, exactly... except weren't we talking about the XL center charging above market rates for Connecticut to lease the stadium and not about building am football stadium in Storrs?

So, you're accusing the University and the Athletic Director of lying to the media? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm sure you're right.

You interjected the $7.5M in "lost revenue" into the conversation, not me.

I didn't say Dave was lying. I said the $7.5M in "lost revenue" is an idiotic statement because we don't have a football stadium in Storrs.

In addition, each statement only tells half the picture, playing in Storrs? Revenue only. Playing in Hartford? Expense only.

Dave isn't on under oath, he can say just about whatever he wants when attempting to negotiate through the media.

If his argument was so compelling, why not just paint the full picture?

 

[CL82]

You interjected the $7.5M in "lost revenue" into the conversation, not me.

I didn't say Dave was lying. I said the $7.5M in "lost revenue" is an idiotic statement because we don't have a football stadium in Storrs.

In addition, each statement only tells half the picture, playing in Storrs? Revenue only. Playing in Hartford? Expense only.

Dave isn't on under oath, he can say just about whatever he wants when attempting to negotiate through the media.

If his argument was so compelling, why not just paint the full picture?

You make a whole lot of assumptions about Dave's statement in order to discount it. Dave never said tough things, but I'm sure you're imagination is right and he's being disingenuous.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

You make a whole lot of assumptions about Dave's statement in order to discount it. Dave never said tough things, but I'm sure you're imagination is right and he's being disingenuous.

What is so hard for you to understand? If UConn could just say our net income from playing in Storrs is X and our net income from playing in Hartford is Y, wouldn't that be the easiest way to compare apples to apples?

 

[CL82]

What is so hard for you to understand? If UConn could just say our net income from playing in Storrs is X and our net income from playing in Hartford is Y, wouldn't that be the easiest way to compare apples to apples?

They certainly could say that, but lost revenue is a material element of this. I'm not sure why that been so difficult for you to get a handle on.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

They certainly could say that, but lost revenue is a material element of this. I'm not sure why that been so difficult for you to get a handle on.

Let's paint a picture, if UConn has "ongoing financial information annual financials and experts" at their disposal, and their argument is so convincing then they should be able to put the below together pretty easily.

Current:
Storrs: Rev less Expenses
Hartford: Rev less Expenses

Proposed:
Storrs: Rev less Expenses + additional games that encompass the "lost revenue" less those additional expenses

We agree they have the above? Then why dance around it with half the story?

 

[TheShot1990]

Rick Pitino adds Lou Carnesecca twist to UConn arena drama

The St. John’s-Connecticut venue saga has another layer to it.

nypost.com

 

[CL82]

Let's paint a picture, if UConn has "ongoing financial information annual financials and experts" at their disposal, and their argument is so convincing then they should be able to put the below together pretty easily.

Current:
Storrs: Rev less Expenses
Hartford: Rev less Expenses

Proposed:
Storrs: Rev less Expenses + additional games that encompass the "lost revenue" less those additional expenses

We agree they have the above? Then why dance around it with half the story?

Because you are possibly the only person on the planet who doesn't understand the notion that the university leaves 7 1/2 million a year of potential revenue on the table by leasing through CDRA managed properties?

Seriously, it is a succinct and to the point sentence and yet somehow you are confused by it? I'm at a loss unless you're arguing just to argue for some reason. But I'm going to assume that your confusion is genuine and try to walk you through this.

Let's try it this way. You've alleged that Benedict is lying because the lie is advantageous to UConn. What do you think that advantage is?

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Let's paint a picture, if UConn has "ongoing financial information annual financials and experts" at their disposal, and their argument is so convincing then they should be able to put the below together pretty easily.

Current:
Storrs: Rev less Expenses
Hartford: Rev less Expenses

Proposed:
Storrs: Rev less Expenses + additional games that encompass the "lost revenue" less those additional expenses

We agree they have the above? Then why dance around it with half the story?

Does anyone know if UConn had to/has to pay debt service on the Rent, or did the State pick it up? How about Gampel? Pretty sure that UConn never paid a dime for the building of the Civic Center/XL Center (which very quietly had its 50th birthday yesterday)... Trying to understand this because many universities' athletic programs are drowning in debt service for their (football) facilities but it seems like UConn isn't.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Because you are possibly the only person on the planet who doesn't understand the notion that the university leaves 7 1/2 million a year of potential revenue on the table by leasing through CDRA managed properties?

Seriously, it is a succinct and to the point sentence and yet somehow you are confused by it? I'm at a loss unless you're arguing just to argue for some reason. But I'm going to assume that your confusion is genuine and try to walk you through this.

Let's try it this way. You've alleged that Benedict is lying because the lie is advantageous to UConn. What do you think that advantage is?

Do you not understand there isn't a football stadium in Storrs? Rendering any opportunity cost of playing all athletic competitions in Storrs moot? For the 10th time even in this fantasy land scenario, you/him only cite revenue. Certainly if you double the games played on campus, or ya know, have to finance a 40,000 seat stadium there would be some expense, no?

I'm going to ask two more questions (which if you want to reply to, go ahead, if not so be it) and you can have the final word.

1. Is an estimate about the Storrs/Hartford split a bit disingenuous because there isn't the infrastructure or stadium built to accommodate football?

2. Even if you believe his $7.5M in lost revenue number, why isn't there an expense component acknowledged? Clearly they have data on that because they don't pass up the opportunity to say it cost $4M to play games in Hartford.

And I've never alleged Bennedict is lying. He's telling them about the side of the coin that is advantageous to the media so he can attempt to negotiate a more favorable deal from the state with respect to games played off campus.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

At times when viewing the boneyard, this is what I see:

 

[CL82]

Do you not understand there isn't a football stadium in Storrs? Rendering any opportunity cost of playing all athletic competitions in Storrs moot? For the 10th time even in this fantasy land scenario, you/him only cite revenue. Certainly if you double the games played on campus, or ya know, have to finance a 40,000 seat stadium there would be some expense, no?

What are you basing your analysis that the 7.5 million in lost revenue is based upon a football stadium in Storrs. Pro tip: "my imagination" isn't an answer.

I've never alleged Bennedict is lying.

Excellent. If he's not lying, then he is telling the truth and the University of Connecticut playing games at sites managed by the CDRA cost the university 7.5 million annually in lost revenue. That's an awful lot to pay so that people who live to the west of Hartford don't have to drive an extra 30 minutes.

 

[Tyler2Rings]

At times when viewing the boneyard, this is what I see:

No it isn't

 

[ConnHuskBask]

What are you basing your analysis that the 7.5 million in lost revenue is based upon a football stadium in Storrs. Pro tip: "my imagination" isn't an answer.


Excellent. If he's not lying, then he is telling the truth and the University of Connecticut playing games at sites managed by the CDRA cost the university 7.5 million annually in lost revenue. That's an awful lot to pay so that people who live to the west of Hartford don't have to drive an extra 30 minutes.

UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the Capital Region Development Authority."

Do you understand revenue isn't net income? I'm perplexed by the bolded text in your post and your insistence of continually pointing to an revenue estimate while failing to acknowledge there are associated expenses that would greatly affect the bottom line (net income).

P.S. you dodged the two questions in my prior post. Any particular reason?

 

[CL82]

Do you understand revenue isn't net income?

Yes.

Is it your supposition that all the revenue will be offset by expenses? You seem to suggest that Benedict is being disingenuous in pursuit of a goal. What exactly do you think that goal might be, ultimately? Do you think he is seeking to run the department at a greater deficit? Seriously. I'd love to know the answer on that. I appreciate people being pedantic as much as the next guy, (who, in all honesty, probably doesn't appreciate it at all, most people don't) but you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

It really is a uniquely entitled viewpoint in that you seem to be saying since you don't know every facet of the information, the statements of those who do have access to that information must be illegitimate. Kind of a silly thought process in my view. Or maybe it's just Internet posturing? At this point it's hard to tell.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Yes.

Is it your supposition that all the revenue will be offset by expenses? You seem to suggest that Benedict is being disingenuous in pursuit of a goal. What exactly do you think that goal might be, ultimately? Do you think he is seeking to run the department at a greater deficit? Seriously. I'd love to know the answer on that. I appreciate people being pedantic as much as the next guy, (who, in all honesty, probably doesn't appreciate it at all, most people don't) but you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

It really is a uniquely entitled viewpoint in that you seem to be saying since you don't know every facet of the information, the statements of those who do have access to that information must be illegitimate. Kind of a silly thought process in my view. Or maybe it's just Internet posturing? At this point it's hard to tell.

We have a breakthrough! Your first acknowledgement that this fantasyland revenue is offset by expense. I'm proud of you.

I'm not sure how much of the $7.5M would be offset. Aside from the opex that an additional 30 or so games a year in Storrs that would cost, I think you'd have a pretty large number for the debt service on a new football stadium, in addition to the debt service on parking lots/garages and infrastructure work that be required in order to facilitate hosting 6 or 7 football games a year. This is of course doesn't account for any roadway work or improvements the state would have to pick up the tab for.

So, now that you've come around to acknowledging that there is an expense offset to the revenue number (which we can't quantify but surely the financial wizards at Stores can come up with) then isn't it rather odd the school only publicly states the the revenue "lost"? What is the school hiding?

As I said multiple times in this thread, Dave is publicly trying to paint the most favorable position publicly for UConn as it attempts to negotiate a better deal with the state for athletics in Hartford/East Hartford. He's not lying and he's doing his job pretty well as evidenced by you and others parroting the $7.5M "lost revenue" number continually.

As I've said multiple times in this thread as well, I don't have all the information, but due to UConn not disclosing it, my assumption is that it makes their case less compelling.

 

[CL82]

We have a breakthrough! Your first acknowledgement that this fantasyland revenue is offset by expense. I'm proud of you.

I'm not sure how much of the $7.5M would be offset. Aside from the opex that an additional 30 or so games a year in Storrs that would cost, I think you'd have a pretty large number for the debt service on a new football stadium, in addition to the debt service on parking lots/garages and infrastructure work that be required in order to facilitate hosting 6 or 7 football games a year. This is of course doesn't account for any roadway work or improvements the state would have to pick up the tab for.

So, now that you've come around to acknowledging that there is an expense offset to the revenue number (which we can't quantify but surely the financial wizards at Stores can come up with) then isn't it rather odd the school only publicly states the the revenue "lost"? What is the school hiding?

As I said multiple times in this thread, Dave is publicly trying to paint the most favorable position publicly for UConn as it attempts to negotiate a better deal with the state for athletics in Hartford/East Hartford. He's not lying and he's doing his job pretty well as evidenced by you and others parroting the $7.5M "lost revenue" number continually.

As I've said multiple times in this thread as well, I don't have all the information, but due to UConn not disclosing it, my assumption is that it makes their case less compelling.

You are sure posting a lot for a guy who said he was giving me the last word on the topic.

Do you even realize the logic fallacy in your post? It's kind of funny at this point. Again, stripping down the verbosity, your point is that since you don't know whether there could be any offsetting expense you believe that there is no benefit to the university having $7.5 million of additional revenue. Kind of a reach don't you think? In essence, your argument is that you're uninformed and therefore right. That is one heckuva hell to die on.

So do you realize you are the only person who is talking about building a stadium Storrs? I mean, seriously, I can't tell at this point.

 

[drayenob]

We have a breakthrough! Your first acknowledgement that this fantasyland revenue is offset by expense. I'm proud of you.

I'm not sure how much of the $7.5M would be offset. Aside from the opex that an additional 30 or so games a year in Storrs that would cost, I think you'd have a pretty large number for the debt service on a new football stadium, in addition to the debt service on parking lots/garages and infrastructure work that be required in order to facilitate hosting 6 or 7 football games a year. This is of course doesn't account for any roadway work or improvements the state would have to pick up the tab for.

So, now that you've come around to acknowledging that there is an expense offset to the revenue number (which we can't quantify but surely the financial wizards at Stores can come up with) then isn't it rather odd the school only publicly states the the revenue "lost"? What is the school hiding?

As I said multiple times in this thread, Dave is publicly trying to paint the most favorable position publicly for UConn as it attempts to negotiate a better deal with the state for athletics in Hartford/East Hartford. He's not lying and he's doing his job pretty well as evidenced by you and others parroting the $7.5M "lost revenue" number continually.

As I've said multiple times in this thread as well, I don't have all the information, but due to UConn not disclosing it, my assumption is that it makes their case less compelling.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

You are sure posting a lot for a guy who said he was giving me the last word on the topic.

Do you even realize the logic fallacy in your post? It's kind of funny at this point. Again, stripping down the verbosity, your point is that since you don't know whether there could be any offsetting expense you believe that there is no benefit to the university having $7.5 million of additional revenue. Kind of a reach don't you think? In essence, your argument is that you're uninformed and therefore right. That is one heckuva hell to die on.

So do you realize you are the only person who is talking about building a stadium Storrs? I mean, seriously, I can't tell at this point.

If all UConn athletics are to be played in Storrs, which is the premise behind the $7.5M of "lost revenue", then where in the absolute hell is the football team playing?

 

[CL82]

If all UConn athletics are to be played in Storrs, which is the premise behind the $7.5M of "lost revenue", then where in the absolute hell is the football team playing?

You assumed that that's the premise, no one else has. You seem to to struggle to differentiate between what you imagine to be true and what you know to be true. That's extraordinarily problematic if it extends to anything other than ranting about your sense of the disingenuousness of statements made by the athletic director at Connecticut.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

You assumed that that's the premise, no one else has. You seem to to struggle to differentiate between what you imagine to be true and what you know to be true. That's extraordinarily problematic if it extends to anything other than ranting about your sense of the disingenuousness of statements made by the athletic director at Connecticut.

What do you interpret the below to mean? To me it means, if we played the basketball, hockey, and football games on campus we estimate an additional $7.5M in annual revenue.

UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the Capital Region Development Authority.

 

[CL82]

What do you interpret the below to mean? To me it means, if we played the basketball, hockey, and football games on campus we estimate an additional $7.5M in annual revenue.

UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the Capital Region Development Authority.

I interpret that as meaning that UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the capital region development authority.

 

[GameTime]

Maybe Ricky P should add PC to his list?

 

[Chief00]

Except "the breakeven number" isn't 10,500. Connecticut pays the XL center $40,000 plus a three dollar per seat surcharge to play there. Even though it charges Connecticut that above fair market lease rate, it keeps all the concession money and all the parking money.

The cost to open up Gampel Is negligible by comparison and we keep concessions and parking monies. If we only have 10,500 fans showing up the XL center, we are losing money. But, you know all that, since we've had this conversation many times before.

Dan Benedict, who is in a better position than you or I to understand the financials says that playing at CDRA managed facilities costs UConn in excess of $7 1/2 million a year.

Well stated. It is an awful hill to climb. What value does CDRA add?

 

[Chief00]

"UConn athletics operates without an estimated $7.5 million in lost revenue potential by playing some basketball games, some hockey games and all football games off campus, per its agreement with the Capital Region Development Authority."

UConn isn't "losing" anything in that scenario. First off that $7.5M number is only revenue, and doesn't account for expense, and secondly (and most obviously) being the lack of a football stadium in Storrs?

I also estimate that I operate with a $7.5M in loss revenue by not having the UConn men basketball host their games in my driveway while were at it.

"According to the university, one basketball game at the XL Center costs UConn $60,000 to 70,000. UConn spent approximately $4 million competing at the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium in 2021-22."

Notice how when UConn frames their argument they only refer to revenue lost by not playing in Storrs and when playing in Hartford only refer to expense?

If the financials were so compelling why not just paint the full picture? My guess is because they aren't as drastic as made out to be.

This is all to arrive back at the fact that it's good that UConn maintains a presence in Hartford for political goodwill as well as making themselves more accessible to fans and corporate partners.

Loss revenue in this context, is lost revenue to the university. There is a huge profit margin for on campus games - at XL we make very little per patron.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Maybe Ricky P should add PC to his list?

The announced attendance was 11,800. I'm not sure it makes sense to rent the Garden if you only reach 2/3 capacity.

 

[willie99]

Donations anyone? All this talk about XL vs GP and finances, and nobody mentions donations

Donations are far far far greater than the seat costs for the entire lower bowl