goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: EMAWmeister on May 08, 2013, 10:15:25 AM
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2F2z3s8bc.png&hash=0f5863d7b1d6e9704d0c8b2c3159afda8e809c26)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi44.tinypic.com%2Fdeqlmp.png&hash=2d201711b7c5df20bd89458d12aeb7d99e49c94f)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2F33112jm.png&hash=85e848726de15b1e7e84874968b3972a9bc230fa)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi42.tinypic.com%2Fa2z0k9.png&hash=995929d2437c1508667821d067c7d9573d564210)
A few things that stick out:
Contributions decreasing nearly $12m from '11 to '12. I'm guessing this has a lot to do with donations towards the westside expansion in '11, but it's still a little strange.
The massive jump in expenses from '05 to '06 in coaching salaries and scholarships before leveling off. Hiring 2 new coaching staffs explains a portion of the coaching salaries, but scholarships going from $450k to $4.5m? And why do our 2012 expenses only increase slightly from '11 to '12? Just capitalizing construction costs until the Westside is ready for use? It just seems that a $75m project should increase expenses by more than $1.2m.
I know that these are just overly-simplified charts to show financial information, so maybe our financial statements would explain those a lot better.
Here is the link for other schools. Pretty interesting. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
-
I would imagine the contribution disparity between '11-'12 has to do with the privately funded BBTF.
-
Need to spend more. There are no shareholders to pass profits through to.
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
-
Unless this info is wrong, the increase in expenses (05-06) is really WTF. I can't find any other school that jumped like that.
-
Unless this info is wrong, the increase in expenses (05-06) is really WTF. I can't find any other school that jumped like that.
You mean 06-07? Maybe it's the Beasley payment :dunno:
-
I would imagine the contribution disparity between '11-'12 has to do with the privately funded BBTF.
#BID effect.
-
Unless this info is wrong, the increase in expenses (05-06) is really WTF. I can't find any other school that jumped like that.
You mean 06-07? Maybe it's the Beasley payment :dunno:
I meant the scholarship expense
-
Unless this info is wrong, the increase in expenses (05-06) is really WTF. I can't find any other school that jumped like that.
You mean 06-07? Maybe it's the Beasley payment :dunno:
I meant the scholarship expense
Pretty sure it's just a typo, like our Total Revenues in 2006.
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
I've got to think the AD isn't just "pocketing" any profits. Obviously, ADJC and his staff aren't sharing the profits as bonuses or something.
How do we account for the profits? How are they itemized on the balance sheet? I have no clue.
It seems like ADJC is using this money on facility improvements. or on coaching bonuses.
-
Coaching bonuses is a good point. I mean, I hope we have learned our lesson and just start including a line item for Conference Championship Bonuses for all the sports.
-
Contributions decreasing nearly $12m from '11 to '12. I'm guessing this has a lot to do with donations towards the westside expansion in '11, but it's still a little strange.
I believe USA Today has this incorrect on their summary. For 2011 they are using the contributions line item from the financials plus the two separately stated contributions line items further down for the WSC and BBTF. For 2012 they are only using the contributions line item and they have apparently included the separately stated contributions somewhere else. I think this is why total revenue has not changed much while contributions have.
I could be wrong though. :dunno:
-
I think I may have read that they changed accounting policy on capital contributions in 2012. I seem to recall ADJC saying that last year we had $28 million in cash contributions, but that they weren't counting contributions towards capital projects as athletic department operating revenue.
But don't hold me to that.
-
I think I may have read that they changed accounting policy on capital contributions in 2012. I seem to recall ADJC saying that last year we had $28 million in cash contributions, but that they weren't counting contributions towards capital projects as athletic department operating revenue.
But don't hold me to that.
I think I remember that in one of his weekly emails.
-
Does "Right Licensing" go up because of exit fees paid by aTm and Mizzou?
-
Our profit is still crazy good ($12,276,830) good for 9th (profit second to right, profit rank far right column)
RR School Revenue Expense Subsidy %Sub Profit Profit Rank
6 Texas A&M $119,702,222 $81,792,118 $5,200,000 4.34 $37,910,104 1
1 Texas $163,295,115 $138,269,710 $0 0 $25,025,405 2
3 Michigan $140,131,187 $115,200,187 $258,885 0.18 $24,931,000 3
2 Ohio State $142,043,057 $124,419,412 $0 0 $17,623,645 4
14 Arkansas $99,757,482 $82,470,473 $1,949,180 1.95 $17,287,009 5
4 Alabama $124,899,945 $108,204,867 $5,461,200 4.37 $16,695,078 6
5 Florida $120,772,106 $105,102,198 $4,356,457 3.61 $15,669,908 7
7 LSU $114,787,786 $101,989,116 $0 0 $12,798,670 8
43 Kansas State $63,271,615 $50,994,785 $2,735,933 4.32 $12,276,830 9
9 Oklahoma $106,456,616 $96,250,328 $0 0 $10,206,288 10
.
.
.
40 Texas Tech $67,928,350 $60,346,836 $3,753,979 5.53 $7,581,514 14
.
.
.
50 Iowa State $55,151,017 $55,113,720 $1,721,449 3.12 $37,297 122
.
.
.
Last 4 in terms of profit:
36 Kansas $70,228,913 $78,973,441 $2,850,173 4.06 ($8,744,528) 225
22 Oklahoma State $87,270,598 $96,782,619 $6,284,687 7.2 ($9,512,021) 226
28 West Virginia $80,064,869 $92,968,960 $4,491,240 5.61 ($12,904,091) 227
52 Missouri $50,719,665 $66,980,889 $1,935,944 3.82 ($16,261,224) 228
Baylor and TCU are not in the list since they are private schools and do not have to divulge their finances. Also, just wanted to include mizzou in for fun.
-
Others may do this as well, but someone pointed out that we count pledges as revenue.
All of those lists are rough ridin' horse crap. Show me a statement of cash flows, or GTFOOMF.
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
gmafb. eat a dick and pay the $30, it should be a lot higher.
-
Others may do this as well, but someone pointed out that we count pledges as revenue.
All of those lists are rough ridin' horse crap. Show me a statement of cash flows, or GTFOOMF.
It'll be interesting when the statements come out in a few months what the numbers are. Would be nice to have the cash flows to see how we are being financed. Statement of owner's equity statement would be also interesting to see what we spend things on (even if it'll be vague in some area).
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
gmafb. eat a dick and pay the $30, it should be a lot higher.
Wouldn't have a problem with it if KSU's athletic budget was barely breaking even, but when they're profiting over 10 million it is bullshit to nickel and dime a group that is already paying thousands every semester to the university
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
gmafb. eat a dick and pay the $30, it should be a lot higher.
Wouldn't have a problem with it if KSU's athletic budget was barely breaking even, but when they're profiting over 10 million it is bullshit to nickel and dime a group that is already paying thousands every semester to the university
the "university" is separate from the AD though. and students aren't being nickled and dimed. how any student can complain about the small amount of athletic fees they pay, given everything that is going on within the AD, is insane.
i guess titletown, WSC, BTF, oscar's buyout, it should all be free. a little perspective wouldn't hurt.
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
gmafb. eat a dick and pay the $30, it should be a lot higher.
Wouldn't have a problem with it if KSU's athletic budget was barely breaking even, but when they're profiting over 10 million it is bullshit to nickel and dime a group that is already paying thousands every semester to the university
the "university" is separate from the AD though. and students aren't being nickled and dimed. how any student can complain about the small amount of athletic fees they pay, given everything that is going on within the AD, is insane.
i guess titletown, WSC, BTF, oscar's buyout, it should all be free. a little perspective wouldn't hurt.
This.
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
gmafb. eat a dick and pay the $30, it should be a lot higher.
Wouldn't have a problem with it if KSU's athletic budget was barely breaking even, but when they're profiting over 10 million it is bullshit to nickel and dime a group that is already paying thousands every semester to the university
the "university" is separate from the AD though. and students aren't being nickled and dimed. how any student can complain about the small amount of athletic fees they pay, given everything that is going on within the AD, is insane.
i guess titletown, WSC, BTF, oscar's buyout, it should all be free. a little perspective wouldn't hurt.
I thought the AD, although cutting back, was still receiving money from the university fund. If I'm right about that why should they also charge student fees, considering tuition goes to the university's bank account?
-
because crap is expensive.
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
gmafb. eat a dick and pay the $30, it should be a lot higher.
Wouldn't have a problem with it if KSU's athletic budget was barely breaking even, but when they're profiting over 10 million it is bullshit to nickel and dime a group that is already paying thousands every semester to the university
the "university" is separate from the AD though. and students aren't being nickled and dimed. how any student can complain about the small amount of athletic fees they pay, given everything that is going on within the AD, is insane.
i guess titletown, WSC, BTF, oscar's buyout, it should all be free. a little perspective wouldn't hurt.
Texas charges students $0 and look where it's gotten them! :o
-
If the student fees are used to help fund a super impressive football weight room, as a buyout for oscar or to pay 5* basketball players to come here I will stop complaining
-
Just a little bullshit to hit the students for $640K while they're pocketing nearly 13 million
gmafb. eat a dick and pay the $30, it should be a lot higher.
Wouldn't have a problem with it if KSU's athletic budget was barely breaking even, but when they're profiting over 10 million it is bullshit to nickel and dime a group that is already paying thousands every semester to the university
the "university" is separate from the AD though. and students aren't being nickled and dimed. how any student can complain about the small amount of athletic fees they pay, given everything that is going on within the AD, is insane.
i guess titletown, WSC, BTF, oscar's buyout, it should all be free. a little perspective wouldn't hurt.
Texas charges students $0 and look where it's gotten them! :o
good point, we own texas and we paid for them with student fees. how can they compete??? answer: they can't
-
The real question is how do we keep expenses down to ~50m?
I wonder what kind of financial concession we make vs programs like KU and even OU who spends nearly twice as much.
-
The real question is how do we keep expenses down to ~50m?
I wonder what kind of financial concession we make vs programs like KU and even OU who spends nearly twice as much.
we maintain the bare minimum of teams allowed in division 1. and it sucks that we chose to.
-
If the student fees are used to help fund a super impressive football weight room, as a buyout for oscar or to pay 5* basketball players to come here I will stop complaining
What we know: Student fees aren't being used to line anybody's pockets.
What we don't know: How we account for "profit" or how we alocate "profit" $$$.
-
The real question is how do we keep expenses down to ~50m?
I wonder what kind of financial concession we make vs programs like KU and even OU who spends nearly twice as much.
we maintain the bare minimum of teams allowed in division 1. and it sucks that we chose to.
It wouldn't suck if we keep pumping profits directly into improvements and coaching bonuses for trophies. I really hope we have some of these solid gold bricks sitting around to let Sean hire the assistants he wants.
-
I found KSU 2011 AD Financial Statements online. Accountants get to work.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ksu/genrel/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/FY11AuditorReportFinancials.pdf
-
Actually, all of our financials are available on kstatesports.com
http://www.kstatesports.com/ot/financial-info.html
-
2013 Budget.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ksu/genrel/auto_pdf/2012-13/misc_non_event/KSA-FY13-Budget.pdf
-
Actually, all of our financials are available on kstatesports.com
http://www.kstatesports.com/ot/financial-info.html
Nice work, just browsing through, but the very last page of the 2012 report is my favorite.
-
We spend $278,500 on parking?
Am I reading this right?
-
What we don't know: How we account for "profit" or how we alocate "profit" $$$.
For tl;dnr: we say we have a profit, but we really don't.
I'm not an accountant. However, I don't think we really have a "profit".
As has been discussed on here, K-State counts all donations made during the year even if some of the money is pledged and won't be received until some future year. For example, for WSC assume donors in the luxury boxes had to make a 5 year commitment... they've given cash to K-State for year 1, but won't give K-State the money for years 2 through 5 until the future. However, K-State is counting all of that cash in the current year.
If the pledge was for $100,000 per year for 5 years, K-State is counting all $500,000 in the current year even though we've only received $100,000 in cash. The remaining $400,000 will come later even though we're counting it now.
I think that's where our profit appears. We say on the financial statements that we had revenue of $60-some million, but the amount of cash we received is somewhat less than that. IMO, it's highly likely that we're spending every dollar we have. If our total expenses are $50-some million, that probably means our total cash received for the year is also $50-some million. The difference or "profit" are the other pledges we counted as revenue this year even though we haven't actually received the cash yet.
For the people complaining about a freaking $30 student fee, don't worry. No one in the Ath Dept is lining their pockets with your cash. Every penny that comes into the Ath Dept is being spent.
-
What we don't know: How we account for "profit" or how we alocate "profit" $$$.
As has been discussed on here, K-State counts all donations made during the year even if some of the money is pledged and won't be received until some future year. For example, for WSC assume donors in the luxury boxes had to make a 5 year commitment... they've given cash to K-State for year 1, but won't give K-State the money for years 2 through 5 until the future. However, K-State is counting all of that cash in the current year.
We are just accruing the contributions revenue and we leave the rest as a receivable. We still have a profit (just not from a cash flow perspective). It's a perfectly acceptable accounting treatment.
I'm not familiar with athletic departments, but the vast majority of companies use the accrual method instead of the cash method.
-
We spend $278,500 on parking?
Am I reading this right?
Could be that Kansas State University or another K-State entity owns the parking lot and K-State Athletics, Inc. (the AD) just leases it from that entity. :dunno:
-
What we don't know: How we account for "profit" or how we alocate "profit" $$$.
As has been discussed on here, K-State counts all donations made during the year even if some of the money is pledged and won't be received until some future year. For example, for WSC assume donors in the luxury boxes had to make a 5 year commitment... they've given cash to K-State for year 1, but won't give K-State the money for years 2 through 5 until the future. However, K-State is counting all of that cash in the current year.
We are just accruing the contributions revenue and we leave the rest as a receivable. We still have a profit (just not from a cash flow perspective). It's a perfectly acceptable accounting treatment.
I'm not familiar with athletic departments, but the vast majority of companies use the accrual method instead of the cash method.
ladies and gentlemen, i present to you, KIM CHARLAND!!!
-
ladies and gentlemen, i present to you, KIM CHARLAND!!!
:barf:
-
What we don't know: How we account for "profit" or how we alocate "profit" $$$.
As has been discussed on here, K-State counts all donations made during the year even if some of the money is pledged and won't be received until some future year. For example, for WSC assume donors in the luxury boxes had to make a 5 year commitment... they've given cash to K-State for year 1, but won't give K-State the money for years 2 through 5 until the future. However, K-State is counting all of that cash in the current year.
We are just accruing the contributions revenue and we leave the rest as a receivable. We still have a profit (just not from a cash flow perspective). It's a perfectly acceptable accounting treatment.
I'm not familiar with athletic departments, but the vast majority of companies use the accrual method instead of the cash method.
Hi Jo Lyle
-
What we don't know: How we account for "profit" or how we alocate "profit" $$$.
As has been discussed on here, K-State counts all donations made during the year even if some of the money is pledged and won't be received until some future year. For example, for WSC assume donors in the luxury boxes had to make a 5 year commitment... they've given cash to K-State for year 1, but won't give K-State the money for years 2 through 5 until the future. However, K-State is counting all of that cash in the current year.
We are just accruing the contributions revenue and we leave the rest as a receivable. We still have a profit (just not from a cash flow perspective). It's a perfectly acceptable accounting treatment.
I'm not familiar with athletic departments, but the vast majority of companies use the accrual method instead of the cash method.
Hi Jo Lyle
HI KATHY BROCKWAY
-
Mizzou's net loss :lol:
-
Mizzou's net loss :lol:
Mizzou is pure comedy.
-
seriously, can there be a more poorly run AD than M-I-Z? :facepalm:
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
-
jfc Mizzou fans are just so dumb.
-
2 or 3 more years like this last one, and Mizzou athletics will be almost as irrelevant as Missouri State.
-
2 or 3 more years like this last one, and Mizzou athletics will be almost as irrelevant as Missouri State.
well that just isn't true, but they will be in a lot of trouble.
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
KSU has a bomb accounting program. Not worried :gocho:
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
There are few things I love more than when Dax drops the hammer on the financials. :love:
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
I've thought the same thing, but I'd like to think that after the post Wefald era audit and I'm sure some dutiful instruction from the Regents to never let anything like that happen again . . . that the athletic department wouldn't be playing any games. Lots of entities within the school itself and the state have a vested interest in the athletic departments books being exactly what they say they are, but given what we've seen in the past in this country and elsewhere, sometimes that doesn't mean a damn thing.
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
I've thought the same thing, but I'd like to think that after the post Wefald era audit and I'm sure some dutiful instruction from the Regents to never let anything like that happen again . . . that the athletic department wouldn't be playing any games. Lots of entities within the school itself and the state have a vested interest in the athletic departments books being exactly what they say they are, but given what we've seen in the past in this country and elsewhere, sometimes that doesn't mean a damn thing.
That's the exact reason something bad could happen.
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
we should fire those dorks for not having 100% KSU grads
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
we should fire those dorks for not having 100% KSU grads
sd4KSUAD
-
Who do we use again?
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
we should fire those dorks for not having 100% KSU grads
The other one is a hawk :angry:
http://www.sinkgordon.com/custom.php
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
I've thought the same thing, but I'd like to think that after the post Wefald era audit and I'm sure some dutiful instruction from the Regents to never let anything like that happen again . . . that the athletic department wouldn't be playing any games. Lots of entities within the school itself and the state have a vested interest in the athletic departments books being exactly what they say they are, but given what we've seen in the past in this country and elsewhere, sometimes that doesn't mean a damn thing.
That's the exact reason something bad could happen.
auditors themselves get audited, dorkstore
-
most of the elite accountants at international megafirms are emaw too of course
-
The Athletic Department isn't some sort of ridiculously large organization. Makes sense to have a small local firm doing the auditing. It's what a similarly sized company would use.
-
I doubt there is anything shaddy or improper going on but they should not be using this firm for the audit. Too many conflicts of interest and it's an inferior product/audit to what they could get elsewhere. Grant Thornton did the post Wefald audit and a lot of people including Snyder got butt hurt by their findings. Maybe that is why they went back to this small fry firm ran by people they know.
I read the Grant Thornton report and everything in it was legit stuff that needed to be pointed out. Snyder tried to make it sound like they were calling his chracter into question, but really they were just pointing out shoddy accounting/controls on transactions that involved him. Obviously there was some actual shaddy stuff like the secret contract with Prince and the loans to Weiser, but most in that report was just boiled down to bad accounting. Snyder commented like he deserved the benefit of the doubt, but giving someone the benefit of doubt based on their reputation and or your relationship with them is the exact opposite of what an audit is suppossed to be.
Does anyone know if currie cleaned house on the accounting/finance side of the AD when he took over?
-
I doubt there is anything shaddy or improper going on they they should not be using this firm for the audit. Too many conflicts of interest and it's an inferior product/audit to what they could get elsewhere. Grant Thornton did the post Wefald audit and a lot of people including Snyder got butt hurt by their findings. Maybe that is why they want back to this small fry firm ran by people they know.
I read the Grant Thornton report and everything in it was legit stuff that needed to be pointed out. Snyder tried to make it sound like they were calling his chracter into question but really they were just pointing out shoddy accounting/controls on transactions that involved him. Obviously there was some actual shaddy stuff like the secret contract with Prince and the loans to Weiser but most in that report was just boiled down to bad accounting. Snyder commented like he deserved the benefit of the doubt or something but giving someone the benefit of doubt based on their reputation and or your relationship with them is the exact opposite of what an audit is suppossed to be.
Does anyone know if currie cleaned house on the accounting/finance side of the AD when he took over?
With extreme prejudice as I recall.
-
this smokey person outed as a butthurt dorkstore auditor :lol:
-
this smokey person outed as a butthurt dorkstore auditor :lol:
smokey the bear? more like smokey the pig, amirite? :lol:
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
I've thought the same thing, but I'd like to think that after the post Wefald era audit and I'm sure some dutiful instruction from the Regents to never let anything like that happen again . . . that the athletic department wouldn't be playing any games. Lots of entities within the school itself and the state have a vested interest in the athletic departments books being exactly what they say they are, but given what we've seen in the past in this country and elsewhere, sometimes that doesn't mean a damn thing.
That's the exact reason something bad could happen.
auditors themselves get audited, dorkstore
Like I said I doubt anything odd is going it just seemed unusual. And just bec they "get audited" it doesn't mean that this particular job ever gets reviewed, dorkstore.
-
mods please rename lilsmokey to smallshotauditordorkstorecat please, thanks
-
mods please rename lilsmokey to smallshotauditordorkstorecat please, thanks
:ohno:
-
what a boring thread, not sure why anyone cares about ksu ad accounting or accounting in general
-
eff yo math bitch!
-
man, hadn't ventured over to tigerboard in a while. just great stuff. i especially liked when a guy called Stoops "Stoops-id".
-
man, hadn't ventured over to tigerboard in a while. just great stuff. i especially liked when a guy called Stoops "Stoops-id".
Almost every thread is them comparing how great the SEC is compared to the Big 12. They're so insecure.
-
I feel like I'm missing out on some good stuff there but I cannot stand to read through it.
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
Not attacking you - you clearly said that you weren't suggesting any foul play.
My stance on this that it's totally like K-State to support a local CPA firm. An audit job like this is a huge deal and significant business for a small CPA firm. The firm's CPAs would lose their licenses and probably serve jail time if they cooked our books.
Mizzou is just going on a witch hunt since they're board being pud losers at everything.
-
Also, we make money because we're frugle where it's possible to be frugle. We're not wasting money on bringing in a big 4 firm to audit our books. Currier: "nothing more here to see, folks. count the beans and get out" I say we just hire Rod Vogt and let him audit our stuff. Conflict? That guy would blow a whistle on a missing receipt and he's EMAW to the bone...just in a weird, CPA kinda way.
-
I feel like I'm missing out on some good stuff there but I cannot stand to read through it.
Nothing says "We're Mizzou" more than that shitty message board format. Well, the word "jumbo" might.
-
I don't think I am going to far out on a limb by thinking that since K-State Athletics operates under the umbrella of the university . . .. and since K-State athletics receives some funds directly from K-State and also show's money that was borrowed with Regents/State approval on K-State athletic accounts etc. etc. That the state, or at least the Regents could order a seperate audit of K-State Athletics pretty much any time they wanted.
-
Oh no guys. According to Tigerboard K-State's revenues are all smoke and mirrors and even when they are shown the multiple accepted accounting rules that are applicable to K-State's AUDITED financial records they still try to say it's all smoke and mirrors.
Of course I've searched all over the place (because I'm weird that way) to find audited financial results for mu athletics and not just the sanitized reports they send to the DOE and the NCAA and I've yet to find one (meanwhile ku and K-State's has their AUDITED financial results publically available on their respective athletic department websites).
Then again, that is the same bunch that accepts every pro SEC article, even one's filled with nothing less than utter projective speculation as the absolute gospel truth, and any positive news for the Big 12 as nothing less then speculative conspiracy.
Not saying anything is going on about our audited financials. But always thought it was odd that a high profile university (any major one) would use a ma and pa local audit firm to audit their f/s. The same people signing off on our wonderful f/s are former graduates of Ksu and likely donors. They have a huge conflict of interest. Just saying it sounds odd. Would feel better if a national firm w no local ties was auditing that's all. Btw, according to their website 5 of 6 of their accountants are Ksu grads.
Not attacking you - you clearly said that you weren't suggesting any foul play.
My stance on this that it's totally like K-State to support a local CPA firm. An audit job like this is a huge deal and significant business for a small CPA firm. The firm's CPAs would lose their licenses and probably serve jail time if they cooked our books.
Mizzou is just going on a witch hunt since they're board being pud losers at everything.
I doubt the books are cooked. The books were never cooked before under Krause or weiser. There were just some bad practices going on that whoever was auditing us at the time either missed or looked the other way on. It wasn't brought to anyone's attention until a separate audit was ordered when Wefald retired.
I'm talking about things like the related party loans made to weiser, contractual payments to Snyder getting duplicated, too much money running through a petty cash like account creating poorly documented transactions that the taxes were not handled properly on etc etc. Whoever was doing the audit before was letting the ad get away with a lot of stupid stuff like this. I don't know if it was this same firm or not but if it was they shouldn't be using them. Roger sink the sr partner in the firm has been a donor and runs in the same circles as guys like Wefald and Krause. That fact a lone is enough for me to say They should use someone else.
-
The accrual basis of accounting... SMOKE AND MIRRORS!!!
-
The accrual basis of accounting... SMOKE AND MIRRORS!!!
:thumbs: