Charles Fischer Administrator No. 1 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Look...I dislike Larry Scott as much as anyone else...but he pulled this together and the idiot school presidents turned down a BILLION? For only 15% equity? Good grief, Larry pulled off the "Con-of-the-Century" if the presidents had agreed to it. He really fooled the private equity people, but.... Canzano: Pac-12 turned down $1B offer to sell equity stake in conference WWW.JOHNCANZANO.COM Conference ADs say they're galvanized. How much do they get paid? And they're smarter than us? 2 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Haulin No. 2 Share Posted July 9, 2022 ACC deal is probably the best option. Probably the one option being worked right now. Recent Oregon recruiting makes that option attractive. Ducks aren't finished yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike West No. 3 Share Posted July 9, 2022 I think it's pretty clear the Conference Presidents lack Business skills. Not a surprise actually. They don't face true competition. They got a hand out basically (won't go into it, due to rules I respect here, so please read between the lines). I doubt these leaders would survive in the real world, but they never had to. I do wonder if they could, given some oafish statements I've read from their mouths the past three years. But this looks like the LA schools were, and simply have been greedy. If this report is accurate. That should have set off alarm bells for astute observers in the room. But then again, see above. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Author Administrator No. 4 Share Posted July 9, 2022 On 7/8/2022 at 6:15 PM, Mike West said: But this looks like the LA schools were, and simply have been greedy. It is true that they could have wanted more money, but a BILLION for only 15% stake is pretty darn good. I cannot believe that Larry made this happen...or that our presidents declined it! 1 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
idontrollonshobbas No. 5 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Boy, my last bubble burst.....PAC12 College Presidents lack business acumen. Who'd a thunk it? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDuck Moderator No. 6 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Of course, the two institutions that helped squashed the deal....USC and UCLA. Unbelievable! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDuck No. 7 Share Posted July 9, 2022 On 7/8/2022 at 6:15 PM, Mike West said: I think it's pretty clear the Conference Presidents lack Business skills. Not a surprise actually. They don't face true competition. They got a hand out basically (won't go into it, due to rules I respect here, so please read between the lines). I doubt these leaders would survive in the real world, but they never had to. I do wonder if they could, given some oafish statements I've read from their mouths the past three years. But this looks like the LA schools were, and simply have been greedy. If this report is accurate. That should have set off alarm bells for astute observers in the room. But then again, see above. How many of the presidents have an interest in athletics? They oversee a billion dollar plus organization. The athletic director is the one who focuses on the conference affiliation and inner workings but I doubt many of them have particular expertise in media rights value. Reporting at the time certainly painted a different picture than what JC claims. Further we have no idea what the proposed partner was asking for. A lot of private equity firms border on sketchy. The Pac-12 is no longer interested in selling a media rights stake to private equity firms AWFULANNOUNCING.COM The Pac-12's plan to sell a stake to a private equity firm always seemed unlikely, and now it's officially dead; a strategic partnership remains possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deschutesduck No. 8 Share Posted July 9, 2022 From essentially a $6.7 billion valuation to people wondering if the PAC will be around in a few years... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtisd316 No. 9 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Big 12 is the best option a loose partnership with the ACC won't work I've already seen reports on it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven A Moderator No. 10 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Hard to believe Mr. Scott is not tooting this horn based upon all the negative publicity/blame he got and is getting. Or did he present the offer while badmouthing it at the same time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Author Administrator No. 11 Share Posted July 9, 2022 He made so many millions off the Pac12 for so little, and I’m sure he is realizing he should shut the “blank” up now. Everyone, see how we can avoid that word if we want to? Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrw Moderator No. 12 Share Posted July 9, 2022 On 7/8/2022 at 6:15 PM, Mike West said: I think it's pretty clear the Conference Presidents lack Business skills. Not a surprise actually. They don't face true competition. They got a hand out basically (won't go into it, due to rules I respect here, so please read between the lines). I doubt these leaders would survive in the real world, but they never had to. I do wonder if they could, given some oafish statements I've read from their mouths the past three years. But this looks like the LA schools were, and simply have been greedy. If this report is accurate. That should have set off alarm bells for astute observers in the room. But then again, see above. All due respect , but presidents of major universities, which are surely in the real world, have responsibilities much larger than just being presidents of the football team. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaps2 No. 13 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Private Equity is not "sketchy". It's another method of investment and many companies products that people enjoy to this day survived because of P.E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Author Administrator No. 14 Share Posted July 9, 2022 You were taking the facts as a personal upfront. Nobody was putting down private equity, but the fact is $1 billion for 15% ownership into the Pac 12 media rights, would have been a boon to the Pac 12, and a boondoggle to those who invested. Do you disagree with that? Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike West No. 15 Share Posted July 9, 2022 On 7/8/2022 at 7:13 PM, jrw said: All due respect , but presidents of major universities, which are surely in the real world, have responsibilities much larger than just being presidents of the football team. If If football ceases at Oregon State, millions of dollars may be siphoned from that excellent School of Engineering Program to pay for Reser Stadiums renovations ( that attendance will no longer have the prospect to cover). If Oregon State loses that $35 million a year to cover the expenses of it's athletic department, that will affect the University. In the realm of priorities, that is as real as it gets. I live in the real world. University Presidents aren't just failing at football. I manage several of their "products". Let me tell you, they are are extremely disappointing. From Lions to Lambs. I recommend that movie. And the title seems so appropriate to our times. Robert Redford could be talking about the higher education system at this point. Because they have been taking the easy route for decades now. Those who saw the movie will know what I'm talking about. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyin Vee No. 16 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Meanwhile the pac 12 commissioner and school presidents gather for a meeting today, 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Haulin No. 17 Share Posted July 9, 2022 I don't know much about this topic, Not going to pretend too. A billion dollars tho? That a lot of cash. Seems like a good deal for 15%. Wouldn't it have made the conference accountable to someone outside of the conference? Someone with some actual business and financial acumen. Can't see how thats a bad thing. Like I said, I don't know much about this kind of thing so I could be way off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck Moderator No. 18 Share Posted July 9, 2022 An equity deal is very different from a tv deal. I will also say private equity isn't full of a bunch of fools. An equity deal would have been a short term gain, and a longterm loss. A TV deal is income and that is where Larry failed and failed badly. There is a reason no other conference is selling equity. They are signing tv deals, don't be fooled by Larry twice. The Big 12 isn't signing an equity deal, they signed a tv deal, and won't be paying any private equity firm 15% of the deal. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDuck No. 19 Share Posted July 9, 2022 On 7/9/2022 at 6:35 AM, Haywarduck said: An equity deal is very different from a tv deal. I will also say private equity isn't full of a bunch of fools. An equity deal would have been a short term gain, and a longterm loss. A TV deal is income and that is where Larry failed and failed badly. There is a reason no other conference is selling equity. They are signing tv deals, don't be fooled by Larry twice. The Big 12 isn't signing an equity deal, they signed a tv deal, and won't be paying any private equity firm 15% of the deal. Presumably a similar deal for the B1G's projected billion dollar deal would divert $150,000,000 to private equity, reducing each of the current 14 members share by $10 million each and every year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyToBeADuck No. 20 Share Posted July 9, 2022 The 12( 10 ) pac presidents are administrators not business innovators or leaders. They get appointed to take over what has already been built. They have 3 main functions, IMHO: Dont mess up the status quo..... Keep the alumni happy so donations and endowment funds continue to flow. Minimize scandals that tarnish the schools image. The certainly have more to do than that but i am in a gnarly mood over their poor decision making. Ovet the years they either received bad advice or ignored good advice. Same difference. The 12 schools would not hsve given up control with a 15% equity share. They may have even received some good advice/direction from their new partners. However an equity deal is not a television deal. The 2 are not one in the same. Probably a wise move to decline or at best minimize the ROI to the equity firm based on growth numbers. (My customers only pay me a % of the growth over an established baseline). The money would have needed to be invested wisely to grow the brand to increase the revenue streams. Each school would be receiving 15% less unless revenue increases were above 15%. I dont see how the 12 clowns could mske that happrn. However they did turn down TV partnerships with the networks. They forged ahead into something they lacked the experience to succeed in. The PAC failed miserably with their control of the PAC 12 Neywotk. Rather than partner with a proven neywork. WTH........ It appears from the article that the 2 traitor schools were against the equity stake. Maybe that was good, maybe it wasnt. I just wonder how long they were out to hurt the other 10 members. Since 2006, usuc and uclasuc have absolutely under performed in conference and on a national stage. These 2 schools dont even have an on campus stadium. If they cant even invest in themselves why would we expect them to be emotionally or monetarily invested in the PAC. They both cashed their equity share of the cash the DUCKS generated for the conference. Didnt they? Well past is past. Time to move forward. Let's hope better choices are on the horizon. One piece of advice, dont vacate the so cal and central california TV markets. Still millions of TV's to go get in Cali. The PAC'S greatest asset is the after 7 pm est TV viewing on Saturday night. Give the networks what they need and the money will follow. Not SEC/BIG money but good money. Add a few pieces and go get the table scraps that ESPN and ACC are offering. GO DUCKS...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lownslowav8r No. 21 Share Posted July 9, 2022 My take from the article is that the resistance to the deal was not due to the stereotypical ‘business naivety" or "lack of innovation" of PAC-12 college presidents, but because of the opposition of USC to the deal. This opposition appears in retrospect to be based on USC not wanting to be contractually tied to the conference. As one person quoted said, "USC has had one foot out the door [of the conference] for the last 20 years." 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
idontrollonshobbas No. 22 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Universities are more akin to federal agencies than business entities. A Uni Prez and a CEO need some similar skills to deal with bureaucratic functions, but there is nothing like the market-based skill set a business CEO requires. Unis are protected from many of the realities of the business world. Their revenues are paid by people other than their clients. They have their own accrediting bodies, made up of their peers, to protect those federal revenue streams form new competition. They are not subject to tariffs, taxes or regulations like other import entities (foreign students) nor do they need sophisticated marketing departments to develop new products or conduct market research at the same level of a business. On top of it all, on the West Coast, with its lukewarm attitudes toward commerce and team sports, those Unis will hire candidates with a focus on "academic prowess", activism and elite social status. Unlike, say, Purdue, which hired Mitch Daniels and who has pointed that school toward student career success, business integration in the classroom and holding down costs (hasn't raised tuition in a decade). Or, Uni presidents in the SEC who understand that football is an equal part of their brand to the academics and who represent (and fundraise amongst) populations beyond the alumni and student body. This is why the PAC-12 is left out in the cold.....we don't play big boy college athletics, despite Uncle Phil's dollars. Goes to show, it takes a culture, to dominate in this game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Waddler Moderator No. 23 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Not coming from a financials background, I don’t pretend to grasp the contractual commitment difference between a tv and equity deal, but if one ties a percentage of a school’s value to private holdings irregardless of not knowing what may or may not effect a school’s future, I’d be inclined to question the wisdom of such a choice. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven A Moderator No. 24 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Would an equity deal allow the equity partner to "control" all of the schools because they are an "owner" of 15% of each school? If so, then it was a no brainer to turn it down or legally not accomplishable as you can't sell a portion of a state school. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck Moderator No. 25 Share Posted July 9, 2022 On 7/9/2022 at 11:46 AM, Steven A said: Would an equity deal allow the equity partner to "control" all of the schools because they are an "owner" of 15% of each school? If so, then it was a no brainer to turn it down or legally not accomplishable as you can't sell a portion of a state school. Canzano did some great reporting when he went after Lavish Larry. This little piece is surprisingly lightweight on the subject, IMHO. Nobody is selling an equity partnership to a conference. Canzano must be going after eyeballs, and numbers with this article. Now he just needs to get his numbers up so he can get paid. I suppose it is an indication about most of the writing being done. It just matters how many will click on your link. Every click is monetized, who cares about the content. Makes sense, he was on salary when he did the reporting for the Oregonian. Who cares about good journalism or award winning writing anymore. Grateful for FishDuck and it's writers! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrw Moderator No. 26 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Remember, this whole story comes from from Larry Scott, filtered through John Canzano, neither of whom are over-burdened with a devotion to the truth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike West No. 27 Share Posted July 9, 2022 On 7/8/2022 at 6:35 PM, McDuck said: How many of the presidents have an interest in athletics? They oversee a billion dollar plus organization. The athletic director is the one who focuses on the conference affiliation and inner workings but I doubt many of them have particular expertise in media rights value When a hundred million dollars may cut into your expenses (short or long term) , your billion dollar enterprise will be affected. Even if you have an executive tending to that line of business, you are ultimately responsible. Taxpayers pick up those kind of mistakes (and students of course) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
