UConn athletic budget trending in right direction (Dom Amore @Courant)

[Chin Diesel]

I just think folks forget that CRDA is much, much more than just the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium: OLR Backgrounder: Capital Region Development Authority.

And each of those entities it manages should be able to show how much they bring in and how it costs to run them.

 

[How Sway?!]

You gonna take me to court if I start posting links?

Still waiting on that proof

 

[Mr. Hand]

I just think folks forget that CRDA is much, much more than just the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium: OLR Backgrounder: Capital Region Development Authority.

The CRDA represents the interests of the city of Hartford and "seven surrounding towns."

Why those towns get to bend UConn over a barrel is a mystery.

 

[Mr. Hand]

Still waiting on that proof

Hang on, it's coming.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Well, if that's the case then why not do it in a way that reflects the economics of the CDRA's losses by letting them occur in that institution rather than trying to hide them in the athletic departments budget?

Truth be told, however, it does matter. Part of the criticisms that the university of Connecticut receives regarding its status as a conference realignment partner is it annual losses. Hiding part of the CDRA's losses In the athletic department budget creates a narrative that our university isn't a good investment as a partner.

For what it's worth, I've always believed your firsthand impressions. Where you and I disagree is that "the way things are is the way they will always be." I've never been a believer in that mindset as it comes across as an excuse to me more than anything else. The current problem isn't insurmountable. It will just take some time and effort to fix. Check your PMs if you want more detail.

IIRC, Toscano said he wants to address this very thing. Eliminating a source of confusion.

 

[CL82]

IIRC, Toscano said he wants to address this very thing. Eliminating a source of confusion.

From the AD annual report:

Arrangement with Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA)​

UConn men's and women's basketball has competed in the XL Center since 1975 and Pratt & Whitney Stadium since 2003. More recently, UConn men's ice hockey has also competed in the XL Center since it joined Hockey East in 2014. Arrangements to play in these facilities are currently managed by the CRDA, and cost UConn a significant dollar amount per game and diminish many revenue-generating opportunities that our competitors enjoy. It is estimated that these additional opportunities would generate a minimum of $3.5 million in revenue if UConn basketball, hockey, and football competed under a more typical structure.

UConn spends approximately $4 million annually competing at the XL Center and Pratt & Whitney Stadium.

Between the total rent costs and unrealized revenues, UConn's total opportunity cost of playing off-campus is $7.5 million annually.

 

[willie99]

Still don't see any discussion about donations anywhere

Lower bowl sideline donation $ 1,400 per seat

Lower bowl sideline ticket cost approximately $ 400 per seat (maybe less, don't think it averages $ 50 per game)

From where I'm sitting, no pun intended, it's all going into the same pockets. It's all going to the state, not sure why we choose to differentiate between state agencies. Donations or taxes or user fees or rents.... same thing at the end of the day

You taketh here, you giveth there

 

[stickybuddy]

Odd you say the top teams don't do this, given that since 2011, 5 of 12 NCAA titles have been won by teams playing a mix of home games in a smaller on-campus arena and bigger NBA sized arena off campus.

A full quarter of them have the same exact geographic split as our boys……makes you think

 

[CL82]

Still don't see any discussion about donations anywhere

Lower bowl sideline donation $ 1,400 per seat

Lower bowl sideline ticket cost approximately $ 400 per seat (maybe less, don't think it averages $ 50 per game)

From where I'm sitting, no pun intended, it's all going into the same pockets. It's all going to the state, not sure why we choose to differentiate between state agencies. Donations or taxes or user fees or rents.... same thing at the end of the day

You taketh here, you giveth there

Of course that same argument would support letting Connecticut use CDRA facilities cost free, right? I mean, if it's all the same pot, why have the athletic departments financials look bad? In many ways they are the only ones that matter.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Of course that same argument would support letting Connecticut use CDRA facilities cost free, right? I mean, if it's all the same pot, why have the athletic departments financials look bad? In many ways they are the only ones that matter.

The only thing I can think of, is the university is managing a $1.5bn budget and the state is what $25bn? So $4M of CDRA expenses is immaterial to those that could enact change to account for it differently.

 

[Waquoit]

Hang on, it's coming.

This reminds me of "Free Beer Tomorrow"

 

[CL82]

The only thing I can think of, is the university is managing a $1.5bn budget and the state is what $25bn? So $4M of CDRA expenses is immaterial to those that could enact change to account for it differently.

$7.5M per the AD report.

So, given that the number is immaterial to the state as a whole, then the legislature should have no objection to allowing the university to use CDRA facilities at no charge, right? Based on your observation regarding the total budgets, the only one this matters to is the athletic department.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

$7.5M per the AD report.

So, given that the number is immaterial to the state as a whole, then the legislature should have no objection to allowing the university to use CDRA facilities at no charge, right? Based on your observation regarding the total budgets, the only one this matters to is the athletic department.

$7.5M is comprised of $4M in current expenses for using the CDRA facilities and $3.5M is what UConn forecasts additional revenue would be from playing all games on campus.

Only the $4M in expense is relevant to the accounting under the current arrangement.

$4M is either too immaterial to even warrant a discussion at all, or someone who could change it, doesn't want to, and it's not worth the fight due to the immateriality.

 

[CL82]

$7.5M is comprised of $4M in current expenses for using the CDRA facilities and $3.5M is what UConn forecasts additional revenue would be from playing all games on campus.

Only the $4M in expense is relevant to the accounting under the current arrangement.

$4M is either too immaterial to even warrant a discussion at all, or someone who could change it, doesn't want to, and it's not worth the fight due to the immateriality.

Not really. The 3 1/2 million is lost economic opportunity from playing at home. That includes revenue from parking parking in concessions that the CDRA is making now that otherwise could be made earned in Storrs. That revenue is ending up the CDRA balance sheet offsetting a portion of their losses.

So, I will say again, if the CDRA charging predatory lease rates to UConn is "irrelevant" to everyone but the athletic department, who actually has to pays them, doesn't it make more sense to simply let UConn use CDRA facilities at no cost? It would be a material improvement in the athletics department financials, and apparently, no one else would miss the money since it is pocket change to them anyway.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

$500mm loan at $5mm per year over 100 years let’s get that 30k seat on campus football stadium built

 

[CL82]

$500mm loan at $5mm per year over 100 years let’s get that 30k seat on campus football stadium built

If you could get that deal for the university, I'd be all in. In the meantime though, maybe the CDRA could stop trying to to fund its entire operation off of UConn games? Worst case scenario it should be breakeven to the university to play in Hartford versus playing in Storrs. So, whatever the cost is to open the doors at Gampel, that should be the maximum rent we paid to use XL. But as CHF so eloquently points out above, since the money the athletic department pays it isn't material to the state, one can make a pretty good argument that we should use what are de facto state facilities at no cost.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Not really. The 3 1/2 million is lost economic opportunity from playing at home. That includes revenue from parking parking in concessions that the CDRA is making now that otherwise could be made earned in Storrs. That revenue is ending up the CDRA balance sheet offsetting a portion of their losses.

So, I will say again, if the CDRA charging predatory lease rates to UConn is "irrelevant" to everyone but the athletic department, who actually has to pays them, doesn't it make more sense to simply let UConn use CDRA facilities at no cost? It would be a material improvement in the athletics department financials, and apparently, no one else would miss the money since it is pocket change to them anyway.

Yes, really. "Lost economic opportunity" doesn't exist on a balance sheet or P&L.

You could, in theory, "offset" the accounting for the $4M UConn is charged by the CDRA, by dropping it from UConn's operating expenses and CDRA's revenue. I'm sure there are controls and legal reasons that make it the way it is.

Or, you could in theory have CDRA stop charging UConn for use of the facilities, which again would drop the $4M from UConn's opex and CDRAs rev.

The $3.5M in additional revenue from playing on campus, can only be accounted for by playing on campus.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yes, really. "Lost economic opportunity" doesn't exist on a balance sheet or P&L.

You could, in theory, "offset" the accounting for the $4M UConn is charged by the CDRA, by dropping it from UConn's operating expenses and CDRA's revenue. I'm sure there are controls and legal reasons that make it the way it is.

Or, you could in theory have CDRA stop charging UConn for use of the facilities, which again would drop the $4M from UConn's opex and CDRAs rev.

The $3.5M in additional revenue from playing on campus, can only be accounted for by playing on campus.

I think he's saying CDRA gets the parking and concessions, so CDRA gets 7.5, even if it only technically "takes" $4m from UConn at an accounting level. Clearly the absence of those earnings does matter to UConn.

It's a stupid shell game, one designed to make CDRA look better and UConn AD look worse. It has probably hurt UConn's chances in realignment.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I think he's saying CDRA gets the parking and concessions, so CDRA gets 7.5, even if it only technically "takes" $4m from UConn at an accounting level. Clearly the absence of those earnings does matter to UConn.

It's a stupid shell game, one designed to make CDRA look better and UConn AD look worse. It has probably hurt UConn's chances in realignment.

I understand the analysis, but working within the framework of the current agreement is what I'm responding to.

At the end of the day, I think our subsidy being $7M higher was probably pretty low on the list of reasons we were passed over for realignment.

I still think the missing piece of the analysis here is PSL revenue for Hartford season tickets and a potential loss of donor money. But myself and @CL82 have beat that one into the ground already.

 

[CL82]

Yes, really. "Lost economic opportunity" doesn't exist on a balance sheet or P&L.

You could, in theory, "offset" the accounting for the $4M UConn is charged by the CDRA, by dropping it from UConn's operating expenses and CDRA's revenue. I'm sure there are controls and legal reasons that make it the way it is.

Or, you could in theory have CDRA stop charging UConn for use of the facilities, which again would drop the $4M from UConn's opex and CDRAs rev.

The $3.5M in additional revenue from playing on campus, can only be accounted for by playing on campus.

Of course, it's not "lost economic opportunity to the CDRA, when they actually earn the parking or concession revenue, is it? to them, it's simply revenue.

If Connecticut were to keep concession revenue and parking revenue playing in Hartford or East Hartford, does it have to include it on its balance sheet? Because it seems like it would.

Really are we going to get lost in the weeds on more pedanticism? I can do this with you all day, but I suspect it's boring for everyone else.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Of course, it's not "lost economic opportunity to the CDRA, when they actually earn the parking or concession revenue, is it? to them, it's simply revenue.

If Connecticut were to keep concession revenue and parking revenue playing in Hartford or East Hartford, does it have to include it on its balance sheet? Because it seems like it would.

Really are we going to get lost in the weeds on more pedanticism? I can do this with you all day, but I suspect it's boring for everyone else.

I mean, sure, let's use the CDRA's facilities that the state paid for, pays to maintain and upgrade, and not have them charge rent and we keep the concession and parking revenue.

Why hasn't anyone else thought of this.

 

[CL82]

I still think the missing piece of the analysis here is PSL revenue for Hartford season tickets and a potential loss of donor money. But myself and @CL82 have beat that one into the ground already.

Actually, I don't think we've talked about it much at all, because nobody seems to have the numbers for it. Until we do, any discussion is pointless supposition. I do know that fixing the predatory lease rates of the CDRA would have no impact on PSL's since we would still be playing in Hartford either way.

 

[CL82]

I mean, sure, let's use the CDRA's facilities that the state paid for, pays to maintain and upgrade, and not have them charge rent and we keep the concession and parking revenue.

Why hasn't anyone else thought of this.

Lol, so just to be clear when the university of Connecticut pays the CDRA millions of dollars in above market lease payments and gives up $7.5 million a year in lost revenue, that doesn't matter since they're all state agencies. But if the university used the facilities free of charge, that suddenly does matter because the university in the state are different entities? Lol are you seeing a bit of a consistency problem there?

Sometimes your struggling to white knight the CDRA gets pretty tortured. Do you have a family member on the board or something?

 

[ZooCougar]

We do know that in the last round of big 12 expansion some of the criticism of Connecticut involved the amount of our annual deficit. Logically, then, decreasing that deficit would seem to be helpful to our, admittedly, precarious realignment hopes.

Independent of that, though, it's more accurate to have the CDRA's annual persistent losses show up on their balance sheet rather than trying to hide them in the athletic department via above market lease scheme. The only point of that scheme seems to be continuing the existence of the CDRA which, at best, can be characterized as an political patronage position that has produced extraordinarily bad results in every venture it undertakes and loses money every single year and every one of them.

And then the ACC and the Big 12 added a bunch of schools mired in debt. At some point you have to think they are making up these excuses as they go along.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Lol, so just to be clear when the university of Connecticut pays the CDRA millions of dollars in above market lease payments and gives up $7.5 million a year in lost revenue, that doesn't matter since they're all state agencies. But if the university used the facilities free of charge, that suddenly does matter because the university in the state are different entities? Lol are you seeing a bit of a consistency problem there?

Sometimes your struggling to white knight the CDRA gets pretty tortured. Do you have a family member on the board or something?

Do you ever make a point on this board without some idiotic ad hominem quip or some lame gif?

 

[CL82]

Do you ever make a point on this board without some idiotic ad hominem quip or some lame gif?

Lol, I get it, it must've been a little a little embarrassing to get caught taking opposing positions in practically back to back posts. Nonetheless, the point remains: why does this matter to you so deeply that you continuously white knight the CDRA, even to the point of taking contrary positions in the same thread?