KSUFans Archives

Fan Life => The Endzone Dive => Topic started by: KansasForever on February 28, 2009, 02:43:08 PM

Title: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KansasForever on February 28, 2009, 02:43:08 PM
I know you've already seen this during your hourly perusals of Phog.net, but I thought I'd give you a chance to respond.  I can't wait to see what your post-Beasley, post-Prince isn't bona fide horrible yet numbers from 08-09 are.  Courtesy of BigJku316.

*******************************************
Numbers from July 1, 2007 through June 30th, 2008

ku
Revenue:  $86,009,257
Expense:  $65,707,114

K-State
Revenue:  $48,160,113
Expenses: $40,409,150

MU
Revenue:  $49,113,786
Exepense: $48,793,770

NU
Revenue:  $75,492,884
Expense:  $66,862,007

ISU
Revenue:  $38,642,013
Expense:  $38,642,013

CU
Revenue:  $52,631,896
Expense:  $48,368,260

OU
Revenue:  $77,098,009
Expense:  $76,945,883

UT
Revenue:  $120,288,370
Expense:  $100,982,596

A&M
Revenue:  $74,781,640
Expense:  $72,449,292

OSU
Revenue:  $88,554,438
Expense:  $59,168,327

Tech
Revenue:  $42,844,855
Expense:  $39,247,970

Baylor
Revenue:  $44,151,763
Expense:  $44,151,763

By Revenue

UT:   $120,288,370
OSU:$88,554,438
ku:  $86,009,257
OU:  $77,098,009
NU:  $75,492,884
A&M:$74,781,640
CU:  $52,631,896
MU:  $49,113,786
KSU: $48,160,113
BU:  $44,151,763
TT:   $42,844,855
ISU:  $38,642,013
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: hemmy on February 28, 2009, 02:45:25 PM
:dunno:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: cas on February 28, 2009, 02:46:22 PM
We're like right next to MU. I guess that's alright.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KansasForever on February 28, 2009, 02:47:11 PM
ku presently has the second-highest profit margin in the Big 12.  Very nice.  I suspect OSU has taken a bit of a hit in the last few months.   :runaway:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: yoga-lika_abana on February 28, 2009, 02:48:55 PM
ku presently has the second-highest profit margin in the Big 12.  Very nice.  I suspect OSU has taken a bit of a hit in the last few months.   :runaway:
usually winning correlates into profit :dunno: so bfd. Two Cents
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KansasForever on February 28, 2009, 02:49:37 PM
ku presently has the second-highest profit margin in the Big 12.  Very nice.  I suspect OSU has taken a bit of a hit in the last few months.   :runaway:
usually winning correlates into profit :dunno: so bfd. Two Cents

Excellent point.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2009, 03:06:26 PM
LOL at BigJkutard and KansasForeverTard.

Athletic departments do their accounting differently.  In fact it wouldn't shock me at all if Lew wasn't treating bond sales as operating revenue, afterall he's treated capital project giving in the past as operating revenue.

Look at MU, their DOE report almost always looks like that . . . several years ago they got nearly $35 million in donations from Wal-Mart boy and a Mizzou booster group in KC, but their revenues in their DOE report didn't reflect those numbers at all.

Baylor's spending about $35 million on a new indoor practice facility and new offices which are privately funded, but they don't reflect it in their DOE Equity in Athletics report, because the money is handled by the Bear Foundation.

LOL.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: cireksu on February 28, 2009, 03:10:03 PM
Dax owns the Phog tards again.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: BMWJhawk on February 28, 2009, 03:39:39 PM
Yeah, I'm sure K-State's athletic department found a way to sweep almost $40 million in revenue under the rug.  Winning the National Championship and Orange Bowl wouldn't have created any separation for ku.


 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: BMWJhawk on February 28, 2009, 03:42:20 PM
With all those super secret private donations just flooding into K-State's athletic department, I'm surprised construction hasn't even started yet on the new basketball facility. 


 :confused:

Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Brewcrew on February 28, 2009, 03:51:19 PM
Notice she throws crap at the wall and can prove nothing. classic jaynie.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on February 28, 2009, 03:52:22 PM
Why would we want a new basketball arena? We are just tickled pink with our 54 year old, urine and sweat smelling, low concession area'd, piece of crap fieldhouse. Oh, I guess that's your's, isn't it?
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: BMWJhawk on February 28, 2009, 03:56:57 PM
What the f*ck are you talking about, Republican douchebag?
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on February 28, 2009, 04:02:50 PM
What the f*ck are you talking about, Republican douchebag?

Refer to your previous post, liberal piece-o-shat.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KansasForever on February 28, 2009, 04:04:25 PM
LOL at BigJkutard and KansasForeverTard.

Athletic departments do their accounting differently.  In fact it wouldn't shock me at all if Lew wasn't treating bond sales as operating revenue, afterall he's treated capital project giving in the past as operating revenue.

Look at MU, their DOE report almost always looks like that . . . several years ago they got nearly $35 million in donations from Wal-Mart boy and a Mizzou booster group in KC, but their revenues in their DOE report didn't reflect those numbers at all.

Baylor's spending about $35 million on a new indoor practice facility and new offices which are privately funded, but they don't reflect it in their DOE Equity in Athletics report, because the money is handled by the Bear Foundation.

LOL.

LOL at dax.

Years of owning K-State in every sport that matters will only get worse.  You are basically in a little raft going through the rapids wondering what that infernal thundering downstream is.  

Watching the lengths you go to to stick your head in the sand as ku hammers K-State every way possible (revenue, football, basketball, facilities, national licensing popularity, conference titles, national titles, head-to-head, etc., ad nauseum ad nauseum) is just way too fun a sport to disengage from.  

Cheers!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: fatty fat fat on February 28, 2009, 04:08:31 PM
umm...dax is right. those ku numbers are hilarious.

Quote
LOL at dax.

Years of owning K-State in every sport that matters will only get worse.  You are basically in a little raft going through the rapids wondering what that infernal thundering downstream is. 

Watching the lengths you go to to stick your head in the sand as ku hammers K-State every way possible (revenue, football, basketball, facilities, national licensing popularity, conference titles, national titles, head-to-head, etc., ad nauseum ad nauseum) is just way too fun a sport to disengage from. 

Cheers!!!!!

LOL. You have to be joking. ku hammering KSU?  :lol:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: BMWJhawk on February 28, 2009, 05:08:10 PM
What the f*ck are you talking about, Republican douchebag?

Refer to your previous post, liberal piece-o-shat.


This country is founded on liberalism.  Regardless... you're beyond confused.  For some reason you brought up Allen Fieldhouse (which was renovated in '05 and is currently having $50 million + put into it) in response to my question about K-State's practice facilities.  How's the construction coming along?
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on February 28, 2009, 05:23:47 PM
It's a practice facility. Couldn't give a frack less.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: ChokeSlam on February 28, 2009, 06:02:59 PM
Money smack either way is franking retarded.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on February 28, 2009, 06:26:58 PM
But...but....but.....he started it!
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2009, 06:28:34 PM
Just go do some research . . . a couple of years ago Lew counted money given for the ku football facility as operating revenue, then the next year in ku's fiscal report that had to note the drop in operating revenue for athletics because the previous year they counted a capital donation as operating revenue.  

LOL @ ku being the last school to get their DOE Equity in Athletics report in, and of course ku still hasn't posted FY 2008 financials on its website like they have every other years, so there's no way the resident ku validators can prove anything.

All you have to do is a little research, for example several years ago I looked at NC State's EinA report and was amazed at how low their revenues were considering the millions I knew they were getting in private donations . . . come to find out all the money was handled by the Wolfpack Club and was not counted as revenue for the athletic department.  

But if the resident ku validators don't want to believe it . . . who gives a frank.

Plus Bentard the Resident ku Validator Douchebag . . . I never said anything about K-State getting "secret" contributions.  Being the dumbass that you are, I'll explain again that the first phase of the Wildcat Victory Campaign is going to be financed with Bonds, just like ku is doing with all their current "improvements".  Plus I guess you missed the article a few weeks ago where Dana Anderson pretty much said he's broke.





Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: BMWJhawk on February 28, 2009, 06:35:29 PM
Keep the anecdotal stories coming, 'Pad.  Like they always say, when the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.  There's no doubt that ku's athletic department rakes in more revenue annually than K-State.  It's not even a question at this point, so don't pretend like K-State has all these private donations that are unaccounted for, because you don't.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2009, 06:38:06 PM
They're not anecdotal stories . . . I've done the actual research and discussed this many times long before you hit us with your amazing douchebaggery.

Plus dumbass, I never said there was "all these private donations that are unaccounted for" . . . but it's absolute fact that the contributions to KSU athletics are held on account at the KSU Foundation, as well as all KSU athletic endowments are held on account at the KSU foundation. 

Geezus you are an amazing dumbass.



Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: BMWJhawk on February 28, 2009, 06:47:47 PM
If only we had the numbers for each Big 12 program's revenue and expenses....


 :curse:  :chainsaw:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2009, 06:50:59 PM
If only we had the numbers for each Big 12 program's revenue and expenses....


 :curse:  :chainsaw:

We do, but what the criteria the DOE has for the report, doesn't take into account foundations that exist separately from athletics . . . this isn't that hard, but I am not the least bit surprised you can't figure it out.  For example at NC State, the Wolfpack club is a separate foundation that just happens to support NC State athletics, the same for the Bear Foundation at Baylor.   Their financials would not be reported on the DOE EiA report . . . but again, you're a dumbass, and wouldn't have the first clue. 
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: BMWJhawk on February 28, 2009, 07:05:17 PM
Oh, I understand your excuse, and I'm not the least bit surprised you decided to use it.


 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: GoldbrickGangBoss on February 28, 2009, 07:09:14 PM
Dammit, Dax. Use a more creative word than 'dumbass' all the time.

Remember when you use to make variations on names and make a long string of insults at one time all in one sentence? Those were your best days. Return to them.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2009, 07:09:26 PM
I'm pretty much a clueless dumbass


 :thumbsup:

FYP
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: BMWJhawk on February 28, 2009, 07:11:45 PM
Could you throw in a few more adjectives to go along with "clueless dumbass?"  TIA.


 :curse:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2009, 07:13:01 PM
LOL at the 22 year old ku guy spending Saturday night on a K-State BBS.

Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on February 28, 2009, 07:23:33 PM
Could you throw in a few more adjectives to go along with "clueless dumbass?"  TIA.


 :curse:

Anti-bathing, half-wit, brain dead, dipshat, crack head.....
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2009, 07:26:18 PM
LOL at Lew Perkins stealing $3million a year from the students in fees.

Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KSUTOMMY on February 28, 2009, 08:13:34 PM
 :popcorn:  :lol:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: EmporiaWildcat on February 28, 2009, 08:16:51 PM
You know you're a GIGANTIC loser when you have 679 posts on your rivals' message board.

Go to "The Hawk", buy a cold one, and get a life dood.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: tfurn on February 28, 2009, 10:24:54 PM
What the f*ck are you talking about, Republican douchebag?

Refer to your previous post, liberal piece-o-shat.


This country is founded on liberalism.  Regardless... you're beyond confused.  For some reason you brought up Allen Fieldhouse (which was renovated in '05 and is currently having $50 million + put into it) in response to my question about K-State's practice facilities.  How's the construction coming along?

Thats funny. I thought this country has always balanced conservative and liberal views    :dunno:   :popcorn:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on February 28, 2009, 10:33:29 PM
What the f*ck are you talking about, Republican douchebag?

Refer to your previous post, liberal piece-o-shat.


This country is founded on liberalism.  Regardless... you're beyond confused.  For some reason you brought up Allen Fieldhouse (which was renovated in '05 and is currently having $50 million + put into it) in response to my question about K-State's practice facilities.  How's the construction coming along?


Thats funny. I thought this country has always balanced conservative and liberal views    :dunno:   :popcorn:

This country was founded on the belief that smaller government was best and that the individual should have control over his life and property.
Didn't pass many history or gov classes, did ya?
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: ednksu on February 28, 2009, 10:42:45 PM
actually this country is a Hamiltonian democracy not a Jeffersonian democracy


oh and Dax, settle down a bit, you have proved them wrong again.  Dont kill yourself over it.  We can all point to areas where ku people make up and bend stats to meet their own needs.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Lurker on February 28, 2009, 10:46:56 PM
this country is a constitutional republic not a democracy
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on February 28, 2009, 11:20:56 PM
this country is a constitutional republic not a democracy

True. Also supports my point:

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and conflict; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

-- James Madison
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KansasForever on March 01, 2009, 08:41:19 AM
actually this country is a Hamiltonian democracy not a Jeffersonian democracy


oh and Dax, settle down a bit, you have proved them wrong again.  Dont kill yourself over it.  We can all point to areas where ku people make up and bend stats to meet their own needs.

Huh?  What about the Department of Education website are we making up?

I would suggest it's just the opposite.  ku fans show official numbers, K-State fans bury their heads in the sand and shriek that they must not be true . . .
 :runaway:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: ednksu on March 01, 2009, 09:16:43 AM
actually this country is a Hamiltonian democracy not a Jeffersonian democracy


oh and Dax, settle down a bit, you have proved them wrong again.  Dont kill yourself over it.  We can all point to areas where ku people make up and bend stats to meet their own needs.

Huh?  What about the Department of Education website are we making up?

I would suggest it's just the opposite.  ku fans show official numbers, K-State fans bury their heads in the sand and shriek that they must not be true . . .
 :runaway:

for instance: On a clubsi (car forum)

ku fan: We're not a white cracker U, we are only 76% cracker!
Me: No you really are
ku fan: But I have these stats that say so!
Me: No, the "stats" you use show non respondents and alien non residents as being non-white
ku fan:  :poke:


So the next time you get a "fact" sheet from the local brown shirts be sure to double check your numbers and more importantly understand how they get those numbers before you look like a jackass out in public.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: ksushawn on March 01, 2009, 11:25:30 AM
What the f*ck are you talking about, Republican douchebag?


Refer to your previous post, liberal piece-o-shat.


This country is founded on liberalism. 
:lol: :tongue: :jerkoff:  It's obvious where this moron went (or wants to go) to school!  I think K-who needs to change their colors from red and blue to commy pink! I would have said red, but pink is so much more fitting! :ku:
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: mjrod on March 01, 2009, 11:51:54 AM
LOL at BigJkutard and KansasForeverTard.

Athletic departments do their accounting differently.  In fact it wouldn't shock me at all if Lew wasn't treating bond sales as operating revenue, afterall he's treated capital project giving in the past as operating revenue.

Look at MU, their DOE report almost always looks like that . . . several years ago they got nearly $35 million in donations from Wal-Mart boy and a Mizzou booster group in KC, but their revenues in their DOE report didn't reflect those numbers at all.

Baylor's spending about $35 million on a new indoor practice facility and new offices which are privately funded, but they don't reflect it in their DOE Equity in Athletics report, because the money is handled by the Bear Foundation.

LOL.

Let me see if I understand this..

You're saying that ku inflates its numbers?

Is there any precedence for that?
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 01, 2009, 02:38:46 PM
kansasforeverTard . . . where did I say ku was "making anything up"?  How got damn stupid are you??

This isn't that hard, different schools do their athletic department accounting differently . . . go to the DOE EiA website and read the disclaimer right on the front page. 

All I am saying is that in the past, ku has treated capital project giving as revenue . . . until I actually see ku's financial report (which apparently they don't post anymore) how do we know they haven't done the same thing again??   Last Spring ku sold a bunch of revenue bonds for facilities improvements . . . are you sure ku didn't count that as revenue??  No,  you're not sure, because until you see the actual financial report you wouldn't know.   The report that schools give the DOE is NOT a true financial report. 

Plus, how hard is it to understand that some schools have entirely separate fund raising arms for their athletic departments, wholly separate entities from a structural standpoint and it's entirely plausible that those schools DO NOT count the money those entities generate for the athletic department say for capital projects as athletic department revenue. 

Again, this isn't that hard, but leave it to the ku tard to make it hard.

Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KansasForever on March 01, 2009, 08:02:36 PM
kansasforeverTard . . . where did I say ku was "making anything up"?  How got damn stupid are you??

This isn't that hard, different schools do their athletic department accounting differently . . . go to the DOE EiA website and read the disclaimer right on the front page. 

All I am saying is that in the past, ku has treated capital project giving as revenue . . . until I actually see ku's financial report (which apparently they don't post anymore) how do we know they haven't done the same thing again??   Last Spring ku sold a bunch of revenue bonds for facilities improvements . . . are you sure ku didn't count that as revenue??  No,  you're not sure, because until you see the actual financial report you wouldn't know.   The report that schools give the DOE is NOT a true financial report. 

Plus, how hard is it to understand that some schools have entirely separate fund raising arms for their athletic departments, wholly separate entities from a structural standpoint and it's entirely plausible that those schools DO NOT count the money those entities generate for the athletic department say for capital projects as athletic department revenue. 

Again, this isn't that hard, but leave it to the ku tard to make it hard.



Hmmmmm . . . I know that ku is destroying K-State every way possible athletic department wise . . . therefore according to daxspeak there can't be any truth to the official Department of Education statistics that reflect that domination financially as well, either?

 :lol:
 
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 01, 2009, 10:02:56 PM
Didn't say that either KansasForeverTard . . . but once again, the EinA report is not an official financial statement.

Again . . . you just gurggling BigJkuTard's schlong everytime you post on here, you've done ZERO research into this.

Plus again  :lol: at Lew for having the audacity to steal $3 million a year from the students in fees, and still making them buy tickets on top of that . . . kind of sad really.




Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 01, 2009, 10:20:15 PM
KansasForeverTard . . .

If you can muster up enough intelligence, read this article and then we'll talk . . . this of course is just the tip of the iceberg, it doesn't even address how money raised by separate foundations is to be accounted for etc. etc. etc.

http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/06/23/ncaa
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on March 01, 2009, 10:21:16 PM
Same person? You tell me.........

(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s313/jbleinweber/lew_perkins.jpg)


(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s313/jbleinweber/castellano_paul.jpg)
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KansasForever on March 02, 2009, 12:38:21 PM
KansasForeverTard . . .

If you can muster up enough intelligence, read this article and then we'll talk . . . this of course is just the tip of the iceberg, it doesn't even address how money raised by separate foundations is to be accounted for etc. etc. etc.

http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/06/23/ncaa

You're ignoring the giant elephant in the room, Dax.

Are you really going to insist that the University of Kansas is not burying K-State every way possible? 
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on March 02, 2009, 12:48:31 PM
I think that's the consensus, einstein.
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: KansasForever on March 02, 2009, 12:54:23 PM
I think that's the consensus, einstein.

Except for dax.  Like a defense attorney, his entire argument is based on attempting to deconstruct the massive amounts of evidence presented against him.

The next time he can actually produce any evidence to support his own position would be the first. 

I wouldn't really care, but I'm amused to no end at the angry lengths dax will go to to plunge his head in the sand.  It is really quite entertaining. 
Title: Re: For Dax . . . XOXOXO
Post by: Thin Blue Line on March 02, 2009, 12:56:34 PM
I think that's the consensus, einstein.

Except for dax.  Like a defense attorney, his entire argument is based on attempting to deconstruct the massive amounts of evidence presented against him.

The next time he can actually produce any evidence to support his own position would be the first. 

I wouldn't really care, but I'm amused to no end at the angry lengths dax will go to to plunge his head in the sand.  It is really quite entertaining. 

I'm not agreeing with you, dumbass.