|
|
Post by elcoyote on May 26, 2019 8:41:38 GMT -6
Gate: USD 1.0 SDSU 4.7...so SDSU, assuming that ticket prices are similar, has almost five times the attendance of USD? Am I reading that correctly? Not buying that. Also corporate: USD .1 to SDSU's 1.9? Doe that mean USD gets only $100,000 in corporate sponsorships and SDSU receives 1.9 million? Don't know about any State figures, but definitely know USD raises much more than that in corporate sponsorships.
Update: I asked some questions of a person who would definitely know sponsorship figures. Learfield is the company contracted by both USD and SDSU to raise corporate sponsorship money and USD raises approximately 1.7 million per year, and that's without Sanford money, while State bring in roughly 2.3 million a year. Don't know if Sanford is figured into that amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by gorabbits on May 26, 2019 17:25:36 GMT -6
Gate: USD 1.0 SDSU 4.7...so SDSU, assuming that ticket prices are similar, has almost five times the attendance of USD? Am I reading that correctly? Not buying that. Also corporate: USD .1 to SDSU's 1.9? Doe that mean USD gets only $100,000 in corporate sponsorships and SDSU receives 1.9 million? Don't know about any State figures, but definitely know USD raises much more than that in corporate sponsorships. Update: I asked some questions of a person who would definitely know sponsorship figures. Learfield is the company contracted by both USD and SDSU to raise corporate sponsorship money and USD raises approximately 1.7 million per year, and that's without Sanford money, while State bring in roughly 2.3 million a year. Don't know if Sanford is figured into that amount. The numbers i referred to are the numbers the institutions reported to the Board of Regents for FY18. They are accurate and reflect trends that have been reported for several years. There may be some variations in definitions between such things as what is a sponsorship and what is a donation for example, but they still reflect the official situation. SDSU gate numbers are bolstered significantly from the income from luxury seats in the Dykhouse Stadium and in general, ticket prices are a little higher at SDSU than at USD for "regular" seats. There are also some differences in how attendance is reported at the two schools. On the corporate support numbers, i rounded up as USD actually reported about $50,000 in fy 18.d My main point however was that for Augie or St. Thomas to be successful, they will probably have to rely very heavily on the private sector as their enrollments are to small for the support to come from student fees, institutional fees, etc. Here is the link listed before if you want to refer to it. www.sdbor.edu/administrative-offices/finance-administration/annual-reports/Documents/FY18AthleticReport.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by easmus on May 27, 2019 7:45:57 GMT -6
The ticket revenue disparity shows how important those new luxury options will be for the dome renovation. Plus, the dome doesn’t come with a payment book.
|
|
jackjd
Senior Member
Posts: 663
|
Post by jackjd on May 27, 2019 11:15:55 GMT -6
The ticket revenue disparity shows how important those new luxury options will be for the dome renovation. Plus, the dome doesn’t come with a payment book. The Dakota Dome renovation doesn't come with a payment book? For those interested in facts, note the South Dakota Building Authority, at its 11/30/18 meeting, approved the sale of bonds to finance $14.5 million of the Dakota Dome renovation (plus provide funds for an outdoor football practice facility). Those bonds will be repaid using the income stream from the Dakota Dome. When the repayment period starts, you'll see a line item on the Regents' financial summaries. [One of the posts in this thread provided a link to a Board of Regents financial summary for FY18 -- keep in mind when reviewing such information that you're looking at history, not what is occurring now and will be reported in the future.] |
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on May 27, 2019 12:09:50 GMT -6
| 2017 MVFC Standings | MVFC Record | 2017 Revenues | 2017 Expenses | 2017 Football | # Athletes | $/Athlete | | NDSU | 8-0 | $27,267,507 | $28,124,525 | $5,281,392
| 419
| $67,123 | | SDSU | 6-2 | $22,075,310
| $20,880,295 | $6,173,730 | 514 | $40,623 | | UNI | 5-3 | $19,497,119
| $18,375,024
| $3,549,488
| 419 | $43,854 | | InSU | 5-3 | $16,098,113
| $15,262,080
| $4,048,550 | 388 | $39,355 | | WIU | 4-4 | $11,944,035
| $13,027,183
| $3,128,738
| 396 | $32,897 | | USD | 3-5 | $19,256,962
| $18,904,718
| $3,364,781
| 383 | $49,489 | | IlSI | 3-5 | $27,852,407
| 25,144,172
| $4,016,804
| 419 | $60,010 | | YSU | 3-5 | $27,852,407
| $25,144,172
| $4,416,804
| 419 | $60,010 | | MSU | 2-6 | $26,374,654
| $26,374,654
| $3,858,335
| 388 | $67,976 | | UND | 2-6 | $28,201,349
| $26,727,343
| $4,464,097
| 430 | $62,157 | | SIU | 1-7 | $22,722,740
| $26,785,157
| $4,267,087
| 365 | $73,384 | | AVG | | $22,649,328 | $22,249,937 | $4,233,619 | 413 | $53,921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Iowa |
| $130,681,467
| $130,219,211
| $31,950,592 | 691 | $188,450 | | ISU |
| $82,659,447
| $82,565,176
| $20,352,821 | 443 | $186,377 | | UOK |
| $155,238,481
| $138,456,780
| $37,795,695 | 572 | $242,057 |
That is information gathered from the Knight Commission of Intercollegiate Athletics. The Data Base is called College Athletics Financial Information(CAFI) Database. It is found here: cafidatabase.knightcommission.orgThe $/athlete is interesting. There isn't a lot of correlation between what's spent and success. It really boils down to how good are you at college football? That means everything including coaching, facilities, recruiting, travel the entire budget that makes up those numbers. You can see it at the CAFI database. Its the same breakdown for each school. I would say SIU is terrible at football. I would also say Indiana State is great at the game. They get a lot of bang for their dollar. NDSU is great especially when considering the huge football budgets they have knocked off. The Coyotes are up against a big budget this fall. It's a little bigger than the Iowa budget. The one MVFC hockey school has a large budget. It has an average football budget. |
|
|
|
Post by easmus on May 27, 2019 15:13:00 GMT -6
The ticket revenue disparity shows how important those new luxury options will be for the dome renovation. Plus, the dome doesn’t come with a payment book. The Dakota Dome renovation doesn't come with a payment book? For those interested in facts, note the South Dakota Building Authority, at its 11/30/18 meeting, approved the sale of bonds to finance $14.5 million of the Dakota Dome renovation (plus provide funds for an outdoor football practice facility). Those bonds will be repaid using the income stream from the Dakota Dome. When the repayment period starts, you'll see a line item on the Regents' financial summaries. [One of the posts in this thread provided a link to a Board of Regents financial summary for FY18 -- keep in mind when reviewing such information that you're looking at history, not what is occurring now and will be reported in the future.] Feel like I remember reading that and interpreted it was to buy time for the foundation to raise the money to pay them off. But it’s entirely possible that the luxury revenue is intended to pay off the bonds and I misinterpreted it in which case my quip about no payment book is incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by GoYotes on May 27, 2019 15:50:30 GMT -6
The ticket revenue disparity shows how important those new luxury options will be for the dome renovation. Plus, the dome doesn’t come with a payment book. The Dakota Dome renovation doesn't come with a payment book? For those interested in facts, note the South Dakota Building Authority, at its 11/30/18 meeting, approved the sale of bonds to finance $14.5 million of the Dakota Dome renovation (plus provide funds for an outdoor football practice facility). Those bonds will be repaid using the income stream from the Dakota Dome. When the repayment period starts, you'll see a line item on the Regents' financial summaries. [One of the posts in this thread provided a link to a Board of Regents financial summary for FY18 -- keep in mind when reviewing such information that you're looking at history, not what is occurring now and will be reported in the future.] For those interested in all the facts, note the SDBOR minutes from their October 2-4, 2018 meeting state on page 3659 that the debt will be repaid with private funds from the USD Foundation. |
|
|
|
Post by azsod73 on May 27, 2019 16:54:13 GMT -6
The Dakota Dome renovation doesn't come with a payment book? For those interested in facts, note the South Dakota Building Authority, at its 11/30/18 meeting, approved the sale of bonds to finance $14.5 million of the Dakota Dome renovation (plus provide funds for an outdoor football practice facility). Those bonds will be repaid using the income stream from the Dakota Dome. When the repayment period starts, you'll see a line item on the Regents' financial summaries. [One of the posts in this thread provided a link to a Board of Regents financial summary for FY18 -- keep in mind when reviewing such information that you're looking at history, not what is occurring now and will be reported in the future.] For those interested in all the facts, note the SDBOR minutes from their October 2-4, 2018 meeting state on page 3659 that the debt will be repaid with private funds from the USD Foundation. Hmmm, so jockjd, aka Mother Superior, muffed another one? |
|
jackjd
Senior Member
Posts: 663
|
Post by jackjd on May 27, 2019 17:56:52 GMT -6
The income stream from the Dakota Dome is looked to for the source of repayment of the bonds. The bonds are issued on that basis. Certainly, if a donor (including, for example, the USD Foundation or in the case of an SDSU project, the SDSU Foundation, or even an individual donor) comes along and wants to donate funds to repay bonds, they may do so. In the planning stage, the financial backing of a school's foundation will assist the Regents (and the legislature) in moving forward with approval of a project. There have been projects in the past when a school's foundation has agreed to make the payments. But it remains important to the bonding process that everyone keep in mind the revenue from the facility is going to be looked at for the source of repayment. In the future, while the bonded indebtedness is outstanding, information from the Regents and the SD Building Authority will be tracking the balance due on the indebtedness and reporting in their financial documents.
|
|
|
|
Post by GoYotes on May 27, 2019 20:43:48 GMT -6
JackJD can spin it how he wants but the facts are:
1) The bonds are issued on the basis of the backing of the USD Foundation.
2) The USD column in the SDBOR Athletic Funding Statement in future years will not have a expenditures line item for debt service on the revenue bonds and there will continue to be a $2,587,732 stadium lease payment in the SDSU column.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on May 28, 2019 4:33:57 GMT -6
The CAFI database breaks out sports facility expenses. In 2017. USD 5.41 Mill. SDSU. 5.52 Mill
For my money I’ll take a Dome but you have to admit the old Caughlin Field is looking pretty good these days. Probably the nicest stadium in the MVFC. Who cares how it’s paid for unless it’s a gift paid back through 50% of ticket revenues and high lease and management payments to the generous party giving you the building.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Jun 6, 2019 5:16:18 GMT -6
Bonds are the typical way institutions finance projects not mortgages. In the case of the SD Universities I’m sure the bonds are responsibly issued and soundly backed.
another way to fund large projects is make the funding in the form of a gift. In the case of the UND hockey rink they financed it by accepting the gift affording the donor a substantial tax deduction based on the buildings value/size of gift. In addition The donor was also awarded a 30 year management contract complete with rules and regulations for the university to follow including payment of the management fees and half of all sports ticket revenues for the duration.
NDSU financed the FFD by donating land to the city and paying rent. The FFD gets all suite revenues but NDSU gets all tickets. The FFD is now paid for and I believe the bonds retired.
The first and last options require the issuing institution to support the bonds and the project. The middle way puts the taxpayers on the hook for paying for the building. In UNDs case there is also the cruel shoes of the management fees and ticket revenues. It’s becoming obvious UND is in over their head as the loss of ticket revenues is chaffing. The control Engelstad has is also causing a rash. We saw their discomfort break out in another public spat last winter
Who cares how SDSU or USD pays its bonds back. Their price will reflect their quality and there are assurances everything is sound due to the required oversight. In UNDs case some of the oversight is short circuited. The scheme is not assured to be sound financing method for the proposed project. In the case of UND it is draining their financial viability in athletics and will be a serious mill stone forever. They pay the fees and after 30 years are outright owners and caretakers of an old building they could never afford in the first place.
If you you want to get into a pissing match the best way is to compare effective bond interest rates which reveal the perception of the issuing institutions ability to pay. The lower rate wins.
|
|
jackjd
Senior Member
Posts: 663
|
Post by jackjd on Jun 6, 2019 11:02:15 GMT -6
I was told by friends (I have not independently checked that) in North Dakota that bonding is not used to pay for capital improvements on college campuses in North Dakota. In the case of the FargoDome, the City must have been the issuer of the bonds -- makes sense because Fargo owns the FargoDome. If the bonds are now paid off, there'll be a nice income stream for NDSU assuming the original revenue split hasn't change (does the city continue to get the suite revenue too?). The Bison will have plenty of money to pay rent on the FargoDome.
My earlier posts about bonding and DakotaDome renovations wasn't intended to upset a couple of posters. I know that the bonds relative to the renovations are set for at least a 10-year repayment period so there will be payments made which may well come from the USD Foundation. I do not know how those payments may be reflected in the Regents' financial information. Technically, the facilities "owned" by the Regents and the income stream from the facilities constructed with the bonds are the security for repayment. The Regents approval of bonding for DakotaDome renovations was no doubt easier to obtain when the Foundation agreed to provide funds (a close but different approach was taken for bonds used to finance part of SDSU's football stadium: the SDSU Foundation agreed to guarantee a portion of the bonds repayment).
South Dakota has earned an excellent reputation with the bond-rating entities and the interest rates for bonds issued by the South Dakota Building Authority for campus projects are some of the most favorable in the country (from the issuer's point of view).
|
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jun 6, 2019 12:39:01 GMT -6
It's cheaper to get bonds issued and for the Foundation to guarantee them in order to get construction started. Every year you wait to start construction comes with an escalation is construction costs that outweigh any bond interest that you would pay. Couple that with the Foundation's ability to fundraise what the South Dakota schools are doing is akin to putting the charge on the credit card and paying it off at the end of the month.
NDSU didn't finance anything for the Fargo Dome, the city did. It's a city owned building, period. Sure NDSU donated the land but that was hardly the most expensive cost to the project. We're talking about barren land on the north end of Fargo, not real estate in Manhattan, NY. NDSU would still be playing outside at that high school level Dacotah Field if it wasn't for the City of Fargo.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Jun 16, 2019 8:38:44 GMT -6
From the Pioneer Press:
May be some truth to earlier speculation. If they do join the Summit with those aspirations the league could get a lot more competitive.
Picked that up on Sioux sports. They also mentioned Auges endowment is under 70 but more than Mankatos 60 mill. Augies move up looks like bare-bones but probably just as well off or better than WIU which like the State of IL is going broke. They just fired their President and enrollment is way down.
|
|
