correct $240 million is the asset value. i'm not sure how else one values assets other than using current accounting principles. but let's try your method:Hypeman wrote: ↑May 28th, 2020, 11:01 pmTM I think you are again talking out the wrong end as if you know things.tmcats wrote: ↑May 28th, 2020, 8:07 pm
the state sends zero to k-state athletics.
k-state athletics is blended component unit of kansas state university. its financials are separate. if the state has sent millions to k-state athletics, it was before john currie's time. i would not be surprised that happened under president wefald but don't know one way or the other. if you have evidence, post it.
athletics does not charge royalties to the university (your words, not mine) for use of the powercat. the university has trademarked the powercat and charges royalties for its use by third parties like high schools or nike. 7% goes to the originator, a former professor of art named bookwalter. the revenue collected minus costs go to athletic scholarships.
the sports complex has been built over a period of time. it's not valued at anything approaching a billion dollars - presently $240 million. bramlage was financed with student fees and private donations. since john currie became a.d., renovations like the west stadium center and additions like the basketball training facility have been financed with private donations and department revenue.
and finally, i don't believe you know the meaning of the term 'cash cow' given how you used it. i'm sure you're quickly looking it up though.
We’re you a professor on campus around 2010 when when destroyed all items with the powercat logo? As part of the rebranding, we were required to cease using the powercat or pay the same fee to athletics as an outsider would. That still exists today. I’ve tried to use the powercat for student club activities and have been forced to cease as recent as two years ago.
Athletics, to the best of my knowledge, does not pay a royalty to the university for use of the university name. Interestingly the money flows one way.
I’m not looking at the financials but I don’t need to in order to guess correctly that you are looking at a balance sheet and assuming an historical cost of 240 million is the value of the athletics complex that athletics uses rent free. I’m not going give you another lesson in reading financial data and the limitations of that data like I did a month or so ago because I felt badly for doing so in this public forum, and because you are a business professor. Sorry about that. But, you might grab your textbook and look up the limitations of balance sheets and relying on the data on that balance sheet for valuation purposes. Historical cost is not indicative of current value.
I use the term cash cow because you have been claiming for as long as I’ve been on this site that the superior management in athletics has them rolling in dough. If that’s the case, great! Time to share some with the players if their main purpose is show up and generate money. That’s where this whole conversation started by the way.
the original cost of ksu stadium was $1.6 million perhaps that's the number you'd like to use, 1968 capital investment.
the original cost of bramlage was $17.5 million, 1988
the original cost of ahearn was $2.0 million, 1950
neither the stadium nor the octagon were built with state funds but rather financed with athletic department income, student fees, and private donations. and using that costing method - because you don't like modern accounting principles - that gets us to $21.1 million or $978.9 million short of your billion dollars facility investment claim above.