Restructuring Division 1

[buddy]

Connecticut taxpayers footing the athletic bills,

By giving ESPN tax breaks so they can support P4 Conferences keeping UConn out.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

By giving ESPN tax breaks so they can support P4 Conferences keeping UConn out.

Would it be better to not have ESPN with its thousands of jobs, filling hotel rooms, paying property taxes on all of its physical assets, etc etc?

 

[CL82]

Would it be better to not have ESPN with its thousands of jobs, filling hotel rooms, paying property taxes on all of its physical assets, etc etc?

Are those the only two choices? Asking for a friend.

 

[visitingcock]

Yes. S. Carolina subsidizes its athletic department with tax payer money as well. I think it was around $17Million this year. I live in Columbia and remember reading something about it, but can’t find it anywhere.

You might have read that In Fisk News to be that far off. South Carolina brought in 142 Milton in revenue. Tax payers added 1.08 million. UConn brought in 99 million. Taxpayers contributed 55 million.

NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY

Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.

sportsdata.usatoday.com

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Are those the only two choices? Asking for a friend.

Not sure what you mean/are implying but certainly like many things in life there are multiple scenarios.

 

[CL82]

Not sure what you mean/are implying but certainly like many things in life there are multiple scenarios.

Your post suggests a false choice where either 1) the state of Connecticut subsidizes ESPN not withstanding the fact that ESPN has actively worked against UConn interest in realignment, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the state economy or 2) ESPN leaves the state abandoning it's very significant investment in facilities.

I very much doubt those are the only two choices.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Your post suggests a false choice where either 1) the state of Connecticut subsidizes ESPN not withstanding the fact that ESPN has actively worked against UConn interest in realignment, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the state economy or 2) ESPN leaves the state abandoning it's very significant investment in facilities.

I very much doubt those are the only two choices.

No, you read something into my post that wasn't there. My sole point was regardless of ESPN blocking UConn's potential move to the ACC, it would be a stupid financial move by the state of CT to open the door for ESPN to leave the state. Clearly, CT administration after CT administration has come to the same conclusion.

 

[Hogoff]

You might have read that In Fisk News to be that far off. South Carolina brought in 142 Milton in revenue. Tax payers added 1.08 million. UConn brought in 99 million. Taxpayers contributed 55 million.

NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY

Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.

sportsdata.usatoday.com

https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/controller/documents/usc_columbia_fy24_aup_report.pdf

 

[CL82]

No, you read something into my post that wasn't there. My sole point was regardless of ESPN blocking UConn's potential move to the ACC, it would be a stupid financial move by the state of CT to open the door for ESPN to leave the state. Clearly, CT administration after CT administration has come to the same conclusion.

How exactly would the state of Connecticut be "opening the door" for ESPN to abandon all it's substantial infrastructure, satellite farm, etc. in your hypothetical?

 

[JVN]

You might have read that In Fisk News to be that far off. South Carolina brought in 142 Milton in revenue. Tax payers added 1.08 million. UConn brought in 99 million. Taxpayers contributed 55 million.

NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY

Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.

sportsdata.usatoday.com

First of all, the figures in that article are from 2022. Second, UConn is trying to fund its AD at a big-boy level without benefit of P4 media revenue, which requires financial help from the state. Not sure why this needs to be explained to you, but thank you for your interest in UConn athletics. The taxpayers of Connecticut greatly appreciate your concern.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

If upon

How exactly would the state of Connecticut be "opening the door" for ESPN to abandon all it's substantial infrastructure, satellite farm, etc. in your hypothetical?

That ESPN would continue to move jobs and facilities out of CT if the state wasn't continuing to provide tax breaks.

 

[CL82]

No, you read something into my post that wasn't there. My sole point was regardless of ESPN blocking UConn's potential move to the ACC, it would be a stupid financial move by the state of CT to open the door for ESPN to leave the state. Clearly, CT administration after CT administration has come to the same conclusion.

Well, help me to understand it then. How do you imagine Connecticut "opening the door" for ESPN to abandon 18 buildings on 117 acres, including over 400,000 sq. ft. of production space? What actions by the state would cause ESPN to choose to undergo the enormous sense of replicating that elsewhere?

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

No, you're missing my point. How do you imagine Connecticut "opening the door" for ESPN to abandon 18 buildings on 117 acres, including over 400,000 sq. ft. of production space? What actions by the state would cause ESPN to choose to undergo the enormous sense of replicating that elsewhere?

I get that the cost of moving is very, very high for ESPN to move out lock, stock, and barrel out of Bristol but it could easily decide to over 10 years to greatly reduce Bristol given technology advancements, fully depreciated assets, etc. Smartly, ESPN has already diversified its physical footprint with studio/etc locations in NYC, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, Seattle, and LA. ESPN International has locations in 11 countries across 6 continents. So, I'd say ESPN would hold more power than the state of CT at a negotiating table.

 

[CL82]

I get that the cost of moving is very, very high for ESPN to move out lock, stock, and barrel out of Bristol but it could easily decide to over 10 years to greatly reduce Bristol given technology advancements, fully depreciated assets, etc. Smartly, ESPN has already diversified its physical footprint with studio/etc locations in NYC, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, Seattle, and LA. ESPN International has locations in 11 countries across 6 continents. So, I'd say ESPN would hold more power than the state of CT at a negotiating table.

Could it "easily" decide to move? Could it easily replace its studios? Could it easily replace its satellite farm? Could it easily replace over 18 buildings? You and I may have a different definition of "easy."

So, let me ask, again, what specific actions do you believe that the state could do to outweigh that very significant sunk investment in Bristol such that it would induce ESPN to abandon everything it's built up there at the cost of few billion to replace?

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Could it "easily" decide to move? Could it easily replace its studios? Could it easily replace its satellite farm? Could it easily replace over 18 buildings? You and I may have a different definition of "easy."

So, let me ask, again, what specific actions do you believe that the state could do to outweigh that very significant sunk investment in Bristol such that it would induce ESPN to abandon everything it's built up there at the cost of few billion to replace?

Don't twist what I said - look at what I said in that over a "long" period of time (I suggested 10 years) that given the incredible pace of technology advancements and a strict financially-driven decision making process of taxes, depreciation, labor costs, energy costs (all of which are higher/much higher here in CT) that a move-out/contraction strategy could pay dividends for Disney shareholders. I'm not saying it will happen or even that it would happen in a material level, but when the state of CT talks to ESPN there is nothing out of the ordinary for ESPN to ask for tax concessions and if the state balks for ESPN to start talking about movements. If you're the state negotiator, what would you do? Gonna call their bluff? Not sure Uncle Ned would play hardball. Since it's inception, ESPN has gotten what it wants from the state and unless someone of the highest level of state power gaffs, it will continue. Otherwise, it will be go the way of the likes of GE and others. This stuff doesnt happen in a CT/ESPN vacuum - states and countries are I'm sure lined up to give ESPN a better deal.

 

[CL82]

Don't twist what I said - look at what I said in that over a "long" period of time (I suggested 10 years) that given the incredible pace of technology advancements and a strict financially-driven decision making process of taxes, depreciation, labor costs, energy costs (all of which are higher/much higher here in CT) that a move-out/contraction strategy could pay dividends for Disney shareholders. I'm not saying it will happen or even that it would happen in a material level, but when the state of CT talks to ESPN there is nothing out of the ordinary for ESPN to ask for tax concessions and if the state balks for ESPN to start talking about movements. If you're the state negotiator, what would you do? Gonna call their bluff? Not sure Uncle Ned would play hardball. Since it's inception, ESPN has gotten what it wants from the state and unless someone of the highest level of state power gaffs, it will continue. Otherwise, it will be go the way of the likes of GE and others. This stuff doesnt happen in a CT/ESPN vacuum - states and countries are I'm sure lined up to give ESPN a better deal.

So this is what you actually posted in response to @buddy to start this conversation:

Again, that set up a false dichotomy that Connecticut must give ESPN tax breaks or it will abandon it's multi billion dollar Connecticut facilities, apparently out of spite. That just isn't reality based. Your imagined other states "better deal" would have to outweigh the cost of replacing billions of dollars of infrastructure. That's very hard to do.

The notion that ESPN has a "give me what I want or I'll take my ball and go home" hold on the State is not based in economic reality.

 

[buddy]

Would it be better to not have ESPN with its thousands of jobs, filling hotel rooms, paying property taxes on all of its physical assets, etc etc?

It goes without saying that ESPN is the enemy of UConn athletics and has gone out of its way to keep UConn down. They did it with the ACC more than a decade ago and more recently with the Big 12.

 

[CL82]

It goes without saying that ESPN is the enemy of UConn athletics and has gone out of its way to keep UConn down.

I don't know that that's true necessarily. Rather I just don't think ESPN is particularly incentivized to look after our interests.

There have been moments in time when ESPN could have quietly indicated that it prefers Connecticut as an ACC expansion target at no significant economic cost to it. For example, when Syracuse left for the ACC, Connecticut was the original expansion partner with them. When the BC indicated "it wanted to be the only New England team" the rest of the ACC demurred and Pitt was chosen instead. At that point in time, ESPN could've said no we prefer Connecticut, at essentially no cost to them, because they were committed to taking two Big East teams, primarily motivated at decreasing the viability of the conference. It really didn't matter which two teams it chose. State government quietly reaching out to ESPN at that moment in time might've been effective by giving them a reason to put a finger on the scale. Even if that reason was nothing more than "a marker".

You can make a similar argument about the Louisville jump to the ACC to replace Maryland, but then FSU and Clemson were flexing its muscles so there might have been more pushback.

In the end, whomever foots the bills for conference realignment has a disproportionally large say in the teams that are added. ESPN could have exercised that power. It chose not to. That doesn't necessarily mean that ESPN is out to hurt UConn; it just means it had no perceived incentive to act on our behalf. Those are different things.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I get that the cost of moving is very, very high for ESPN to move out lock, stock, and barrel out of Bristol but it could easily decide to over 10 years to greatly reduce Bristol given technology advancements, fully depreciated assets, etc. Smartly, ESPN has already diversified its physical footprint with studio/etc locations in NYC, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, Seattle, and LA. ESPN International has locations in 11 countries across 6 continents. So, I'd say ESPN would hold more power than the state of CT at a negotiating table.

Miami? Are you serious? It would be cheaper to buy every ESPN employee a new car than it would be to move the facilities to Miami. LOL.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

So this is what you actually posted in response to @buddy to start this conversation:

View attachment 116818
Again, that set up a false dichotomy that Connecticut must give ESPN tax breaks or it will abandon it's multi billion dollar Connecticut facilities, apparently out of spite. That just isn't reality based. Your imagined other states "better deal" would have to outweigh the cost of replacing billions of dollars of infrastructure. That's very hard to do.

The notion that ESPN has a "give me what I want or I'll take my ball and go home" hold on the State is not based in economic reality.

I never said that the state HAD to give ESPN tax breaks or it would leave, just that ESPN has the ultimate upper hand in negotiations, other states/countries are always wooing companies to move in, and by extension that it behooves the state to provide tax breaks to retain ESPN. That is the economic reality/environment.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

It goes without saying that ESPN is the enemy of UConn athletics and has gone out of its way to keep UConn down. They did it with the ACC more than a decade ago and more recently with the Big 12.

I don't think it's that cut and dried. While the TV networks have a very loud voice with its conference partners, ultimately the conference members/school presidents cast the final yay/nay vote. From all that was reported, ESPN actually was in favor of UConn going to the Big12 and was agreeing to pay full share but Fox was not (which makes sense because it would have greatly devalued Big East basketball).

 

[CL82]

I never said that the state HAD to give ESPN tax breaks or it would leave, just that ESPN has the ultimate upper hand in negotiations, other states/countries are always wooing companies to move in, and by extension that it behooves the state to provide tax breaks to retain ESPN. That is the economic reality/environment.

Honestly, you need to read your own posts more carefully.

Traditionally tax breaks are given to incentivize investment within a community. Thus an entity looking to expand, and having a choice of several different sites might receive a tax break as part of the incentive choose site X over sight Y. The notion that tax breaks are a continuing extortion over a state is a fallacy, particularly when an institution would have to give up billions of dollars of infrastructure to move. Believe me, ESPN isn't "going into a negotiation" with the state and saying we want tax breaks or we will abandon billions of dollars of infrastructure just to spite you. They'd be laughed out of the room.

 

[CL82]

I don't think it's that cute and dried. While the TV networks have a very loud voice with its conference partners, ultimately the conference members/school presidents cast the final yay/nay vote. From all that was reported, ESPN actually was in favor of UConn going to the Big12 and was agreeing to pay full share but Fox was not (which makes sense because it would have greatly devalued Big East basketball).

Presuming that everyone acts in their own economic best interest, then whomever is writing the checks makes the decisions. If ESPN is prepared to pay a sufficient amount, such that Connecticut's share of conference revenue is paid for in full, plus a material amount of money. In addition to that would go to each conference member, they would have the votes. It really is that simple. The problem is that math gets more difficult as conference paths increase.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Miami? Are you serious? It would be cheaper to buy every ESPN employee a new car than it would be to move the facilities to Miami. LOL.

Stop - did I say they would move more to Miami? Nope.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Honestly, you need to read your own posts more carefully.

Traditionally tax breaks are given to incentivize investment within a community. Thus an entity looking to expand, and having a choice of several different sites might receive a tax break as part of the incentive choose site X over sight Y. The notion that tax breaks are a continuing extortion over a state is a fallacy, particularly when an institution would have to give up billions of dollars of infrastructure to move. Believe me, ESPN isn't "going into a negotiation" with the state and saying we want tax breaks or we will abandon billions of dollars of infrastructure just to spite you. They'd be laughed out of the room.

GE leveraged a 2015 $1.5 billion tax hike in Connecticut to spark a competitive bidding war between states. CEO Jeff Immelt issued a public ultimatum, forcing Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy to hold emergency sessions to walk back corporate tax increases, while GE simultaneously held "closed-door" negotiations with over 40 potential locations.
The Negotiating Outcomes
Massachusetts: Won the bid by offering a $145 million incentive package ($120 million in state grants and $25 million in city property tax relief). They also provided "concierge services," including expedited infrastructure upgrades and relocation assistance.
Connecticut: Despite offering to match incentives and roll back tax changes, they lost the headquarters. GE cited the state's "unpredictable" fiscal climate and a lack of the "digital talent ecosystem" found in Boston.
GE ultimately moved its headquarters to Boston's Seaport District in 2016.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Presuming that everyone acts in their own economic best interest, then whomever is writing the checks makes the decisions. If ESPN is prepared to pay a sufficient amount, such that Connecticut's share of conference revenue is paid for in full, plus a material amount of money. In addition to that would go to each conference member, they would have the votes. It really is that simple. The problem is that math gets more difficult as conference paths increase.

The school presidents do have the ultimate say. They get input from media partners. Often that input is within a dialogue where the media partner says if you expand by 2 teams here is our list of say 4 or 5 schools that we would like. The schools take that input and the assessment moves forward and then decisions are made votes are taken and the conference does or doesn't take on new schools. While the conference has to get media partner buy-in, it's not totally driven by the media partner. He'll, it was widely reported that ESPN was pissed that the ACC brought on SMU and Calford.

 

[buddy]

The school presidents do have the ultimate say. They get input from media partners. Often that input is within a dialogue where the media partner says if you expand by 2 teams here is our list of say 4 or 5 schools that we would like. The schools take that input and the assessment moves forward and then decisions are made votes are taken and the conference does or doesn't take on new schools. While the conference has to get media partner buy-in, it's not totally driven by the media partner. He'll, it was widely reported that ESPN was pissed that the ACC brought on SMU and Calford.

ESPN controls the money. They can easily control who is in and who is out. SMU is playing for free, I believe. If ESPN insisted, Calford could have been stopped by ESPN saying they wouldn't pay for them. Yet they didn't. That would change the presidents minds. You can twist and turn it anyway you want, but ESPN has never supported UConn.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

ESPN controls the money. They can easily control who is in and who is out. SMU is playing for free, I believe. If ESPN insisted, Calford could have been stopped by ESPN saying they wouldn't pay for them. Yet they didn't. That would change the presidents minds. You can twist and turn it anyway you want, but ESPN has never supported UConn.

Please use facts instead of your thoughts... Again, you are disregarding reports that said the ACC went against the wishes of ESPN by adding SMU and Calford. The ACC did it because they wanted to add Texas and California carriage revenue for the ACC Network. ESPN did not have veto power and was not happy. It influenced ESPN's hardball stance on the look-in they held and executed with regards to the ESPN-ACC extension.

 

[CL82]

Please use facts instead of your thoughts... Again, you are disregarding reports that said the ACC went against the wishes of ESPN by adding SMU and Calford. The ACC did it because they wanted to add Texas and California carriage revenue for the ACC Network. ESPN did not have veto power and was not happy. It influenced ESPN's hardball stance on the look-in they held and executed with regards to the ESPN-ACC extension.

You do realize that ESPN chose to extend its contract with the ACC after the addition of Cal, stamford and SMU, right? It doesn't really jibe with your contention that they were opposed to the expansion.

"Please use facts instead of your thoughts." 😏

 

[buddy]

You do realize that ESPN chose to extend its contract with the ACC after the addition of Cal, stamford and SMU, right? It doesn't really jibe with your contention that they were opposed to the expansion.

"Please use facts instead of your thoughts." 😏

Thank you!