Memorial Stadium in Lawrence blows

[OregonSmock]

Well Beems "all that research" took about 2 minutes.

And it takes less time than that to realize that different athletic departments utilize different accounting principles and use different accounting gimmicks.  Like I've also pointed out, K-State has fewer sports than KU, and therefore less expenses.  I guess if KU wanted to cut a bunch of non-revenue sports and announce a bunch of profit, we could do that, but it wouldn't be in the best interest of our student athletes, or our university.

Very few people at ku probably pay any attention to soccer, softball or women's swimming.  The only reason those sports still exist at ku is because Lew Perkins conned the students into forking over nearly $2 million a year in additional student fees and there's still significant question as to whether ku athletics ever followed through on their end of the deal in terms of providing funds for the student rec center.    Just like about a year ago or so ku athletics apparently owed entities like ku parking services significant amounts of money.   Maybe Cheyenne Zulu got those bills paid.

The Rock Chalk Sports Complex is going to help immensely with the non-revenue sports.  Also, those sports are in place to meet title ix requirements. 

[OregonSmock]

Also, I've heard that K-State counts its long-term capital assets towards its current athletic revenue.

Answer me this, economics/financial guru (that can run intellectual circles around everyone else here):  How do you count an expenditure (long-term capital assets) as revenue?  Translation: How do you count an investment in bricks and mortar as income?   

wut


Sounds like you don't know what a long-term capital asset is.

umm I think maybe you need to look up the defintion, he seems to have a pretty good handle on it.   

Definition of 'Long-Term Assets'

1. The value of a company's property, equipment and other capital assets, minus depreciation. This is reported on the balance sheet.

2. A stock, bond or other asset that an investor plans to hold for a long period of time.

Since a balance sheet gives an overall status on the financial condition of a business, accountants transfer information on the income statement over to the balance sheet in order to determine equity holdings at different periods throughout the year.

[deputy dawg]

Well now that I've had a chance to look at the financial reports (the latest I could find for KU was 2011), I can see where the actual differences are.  KU transferred roughly $45 million in net assets back to the university in 2011.  This transfer is listed as "property and equipment," which I suspect is Allen Fieldhouse and the adjacent facilities that were renovated in 2010.  Meanwhile, K-State counts roughly $15 million in non-transferred assets towards its net worth.  Like I said all along... accounting gimmicks.

Looking at ticket sales, KU generated roughly $20.85 million in ticket sales, while K-State generated $14.91 million.  KU's total athletic revenue was $74.46 million, while K-State's was $63.56 million.  That's really pretty incredible considering how terrible KU's football program has been the past few years.

Great talking points, and I'm sure the Jayhawk faithful high-five among themselves with such storied accomplishments.  But you don't quite explain how assets are counted as income at K-State.  I'm really interested in that.

Of course, you won't explain that, because you can't, you pulled some post out of your ass.  We all make mistakes, Beems, and I for one don't fault you for yours.  If you can avoid telling us what an intellectual giant you are, maybe you won't be reminded of those posts you pull out of your ass.  But, trust me, you are in way over your head here, and you won't recover, whatever laudatory and self-congratulating posts you follow with. 

[SPEmaw]

Well now that I've had a chance to look at the financial reports (the latest I could find for KU was 2011), I can see where the actual differences are.  KU transferred roughly $45 million in net assets back to the university in 2011.  This transfer is listed as "property and equipment," which I suspect is Allen Fieldhouse and the adjacent facilities that were renovated in 2010.  Meanwhile, K-State counts roughly $15 million in non-transferred assets towards its net worth.  Like I said all along... accounting gimmicks.

Looking at ticket sales, KU generated roughly $20.85 million in ticket sales, while K-State generated $14.91 million.  KU's total athletic revenue was $74.46 million, while K-State's was $63.56 million.  That's really pretty incredible considering how terrible KU's football program has been the past few years.

Great talking points, and I'm sure the Jayhawk faithful high-five among themselves with such storied accomplishments.  But you don't quite explain how assets are counted as income at K-State.  I'm really interested in that.

Of course, you won't explain that, because you can't, you pulled some post out of your ass.  We all make mistakes, Beems, and I for one don't fault you for yours.  If you can avoid telling us what an intellectual giant you are, maybe you won't be reminded of those posts you pull out of your ass.  But, trust me, you are in way over your head here, and you won't recover, whatever laudatory and self-congratulating posts you follow with.

 

[deputy dawg]

Since a balance sheet gives an overall status on the financial condition of a business, accountants transfer information on the income statement over to the balance sheet in order to determine equity holdings at different periods throughout the year.

Does not address what you said.  Nice try, though.  Maybe an economics grad would buy it.

[Emo EMAW]

Guys, I know I'm a few pages behind with this post, but has the Department of Energy ever done anything?  Like name one rough ridin' thing. 

[kostakio]

"Long Term Capital Assets" are only shown on the books as . . . hang on here kids . . . as assets.

They're never shown as revenue.

Kids, just step back because Beems is just flailing. 

The facts are the facts, from an operational standpoint, K-State athletics operated well in the black in FY 2012, whereas ku athletics operated nearly $9 million dollars in the red in FY 2012.

Beems . . . you don't have the first clue:

The title rights to buildings and building improvements constructed and financed by K-State
Athletics, Inc. on property owned by the State of Kansas immediately transfer to the State.
Management has chosen not to amortize the improvement costs over the estimated useful life of
the assets as required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. The statement of changes in net assets includes $13,974,978.51 and $2,993,286.06 of
transfers to the State of Kansas for capital expenditures related to buildings and building
improvements, for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. The effect on the financial
statements from the departure in prior and current periods cannot be quantified from the
historical financial records.

Confused Beems Said:

Also, I've heard that K-State counts its long-term capital assets towards its current athletic revenue.

Well now that I've had a chance to look at the financial reports (the latest I could find for KU was 2011), I can see where the actual differences are.  KU transferred roughly $45 million in net assets back to the university in 2011.  This transfer is listed as "property and equipment," which I suspect is Allen Fieldhouse and the adjacent facilities that were renovated in 2010.  Meanwhile, K-State counts roughly $15 million in non-transferred assets towards its net worth.  Like I said all along... accounting gimmicks.

Looking at ticket sales, KU generated roughly $20.85 million in ticket sales, while K-State generated $14.91 million.  KU's total athletic revenue was $74.46 million, while K-State's was $63.56 million.  That's really pretty incredible considering how terrible KU's football program has been the past few years.

Do you realize assets have nothing to do with income?  Also KU has assets on their balance sheet just like KSU does.   Only buildings and expansions built on KS property get transferred to the state.  In 2012 KU had about $12.5 million in fixed assets on their books and KSU had around $6 million.  (The $15 million dollar number you gave was before accumulated depreciation).  KU's ticket sales in 2012 were around $18 million and KSU was just shy of $15 million. 

So far you have shown zero differences between the way KU and KSU account for anything. 

[OregonSmock]

Since a balance sheet gives an overall status on the financial condition of a business, accountants transfer information on the income statement over to the balance sheet in order to determine equity holdings at different periods throughout the year.

Does not address what you said.  Nice try, though.  Maybe an economics grad would buy it.

I never claimed anything as fact.  Just said that I heard K-State used different accounting methods than KU.  I can tell you're butthurt about this because you're starting to make personal attacks and get nasty.

[OregonSmock]

Also, I know 'Pad loves to talk about long-term debt, so I figured I'd mention that K-State's financial report shows roughly $81.38 million in total long-term debt.  KU's is a little over $56 million. 

[OregonSmock]

"Long Term Capital Assets" are only shown on the books as . . . hang on here kids . . . as assets.

They're never shown as revenue.

Kids, just step back because Beems is just flailing. 

The facts are the facts, from an operational standpoint, K-State athletics operated well in the black in FY 2012, whereas ku athletics operated nearly $9 million dollars in the red in FY 2012.

Beems . . . you don't have the first clue:

The title rights to buildings and building improvements constructed and financed by K-State
Athletics, Inc. on property owned by the State of Kansas immediately transfer to the State.
Management has chosen not to amortize the improvement costs over the estimated useful life of
the assets as required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. The statement of changes in net assets includes $13,974,978.51 and $2,993,286.06 of
transfers to the State of Kansas for capital expenditures related to buildings and building
improvements, for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. The effect on the financial
statements from the departure in prior and current periods cannot be quantified from the
historical financial records.

Confused Beems Said:

Also, I've heard that K-State counts its long-term capital assets towards its current athletic revenue.

Well now that I've had a chance to look at the financial reports (the latest I could find for KU was 2011), I can see where the actual differences are.  KU transferred roughly $45 million in net assets back to the university in 2011.  This transfer is listed as "property and equipment," which I suspect is Allen Fieldhouse and the adjacent facilities that were renovated in 2010.  Meanwhile, K-State counts roughly $15 million in non-transferred assets towards its net worth.  Like I said all along... accounting gimmicks.

Looking at ticket sales, KU generated roughly $20.85 million in ticket sales, while K-State generated $14.91 million.  KU's total athletic revenue was $74.46 million, while K-State's was $63.56 million.  That's really pretty incredible considering how terrible KU's football program has been the past few years.

Do you realize assets have nothing to do with income?  Also KU has assets on their balance sheet just like KSU does.   Only buildings and expansions built on KS property get transferred to the state.  In 2012 KU had about $12.5 million in fixed assets on their books and KSU had around $6 million.  (The $15 million dollar number you gave was before accumulated depreciation).  KU's ticket sales in 2012 were around $18 million and KSU was just shy of $15 million. 

So far you have shown zero differences between the way KU and KSU account for anything.

Cash is an asset, and cash is what sparked this debate about five or six pages ago.  As for the differences in how KU and K-State handle their accounting, I've said all along that I think the difference is that KU keeps a lot of its donations in the Williams Fund and Endowment Association, while K-State counts those donations toward athletic revenue and keeps them within the athletic department.

[420seriouscat69]

Beems, why do you seek gE's validation so much? Just curious.

[Dugout DickStone]

Since a balance sheet gives an overall status on the financial condition of a business, accountants transfer information on the income statement over to the balance sheet in order to determine equity holdings at different periods throughout the year.

Does not address what you said.  Nice try, though.  Maybe an economics grad would buy it.

I don't remember anything from econ.  Like, nothing.  Except I though it was really interesting at the time and there were no hot chicks in any of the classes so I could concentrate instead of deciding which Pi Phi I was going to smash.

[GoodForAnother]

Baylor, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have worse stadiums than KU at the moment.  K-State's was worse until the renovation.

 

[star seed 7]

Baylor, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have worse stadiums than KU at the moment.  K-State's was worse until the renovation.

 

yes, great quote lost amidst all of the other "economics" babble.

[kostakio]

"Long Term Capital Assets" are only shown on the books as . . . hang on here kids . . . as assets.

They're never shown as revenue.

Kids, just step back because Beems is just flailing. 

The facts are the facts, from an operational standpoint, K-State athletics operated well in the black in FY 2012, whereas ku athletics operated nearly $9 million dollars in the red in FY 2012.

Beems . . . you don't have the first clue:

The title rights to buildings and building improvements constructed and financed by K-State
Athletics, Inc. on property owned by the State of Kansas immediately transfer to the State.
Management has chosen not to amortize the improvement costs over the estimated useful life of
the assets as required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. The statement of changes in net assets includes $13,974,978.51 and $2,993,286.06 of
transfers to the State of Kansas for capital expenditures related to buildings and building
improvements, for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. The effect on the financial
statements from the departure in prior and current periods cannot be quantified from the
historical financial records.

Confused Beems Said:

Also, I've heard that K-State counts its long-term capital assets towards its current athletic revenue.

Well now that I've had a chance to look at the financial reports (the latest I could find for KU was 2011), I can see where the actual differences are.  KU transferred roughly $45 million in net assets back to the university in 2011.  This transfer is listed as "property and equipment," which I suspect is Allen Fieldhouse and the adjacent facilities that were renovated in 2010.  Meanwhile, K-State counts roughly $15 million in non-transferred assets towards its net worth.  Like I said all along... accounting gimmicks.

Looking at ticket sales, KU generated roughly $20.85 million in ticket sales, while K-State generated $14.91 million.  KU's total athletic revenue was $74.46 million, while K-State's was $63.56 million.  That's really pretty incredible considering how terrible KU's football program has been the past few years.

Do you realize assets have nothing to do with income?  Also KU has assets on their balance sheet just like KSU does.   Only buildings and expansions built on KS property get transferred to the state.  In 2012 KU had about $12.5 million in fixed assets on their books and KSU had around $6 million.  (The $15 million dollar number you gave was before accumulated depreciation).  KU's ticket sales in 2012 were around $18 million and KSU was just shy of $15 million. 

So far you have shown zero differences between the way KU and KSU account for anything.

Cash is an asset, and cash is what sparked this debate about five or six pages ago.  As for the differences in how KU and K-State handle their accounting, I've said all along that I think the difference is that KU keeps a lot of its donations in the Williams Fund and Endowment Association, while K-State counts those donations toward athletic revenue and keeps them within the athletic department.

If you want to talk about cash then KSU had $49 million in cash and cash equivalents at 6/30/12.  KU had $4 million in cash and cash equivalents at 6/30/12.  KSU generated about $19 million in cash from operations in 2012 where as KU burned through 775K in cash from operations in 2012.  Those are all real numbers taken right off the audited cash flow statements of both departments.   

[GoodForAnother]

Baylor, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have worse stadiums than KU at the moment.  K-State's was worse until the renovation.

 

yes, great quote lost amidst all of the other "economics" babble.

I don't think he's ever been to another football stadium. 

[420seriouscat69]

Baylor, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have worse stadiums than KU at the moment.  K-State's was worse until the renovation.

 

yes, great quote lost amidst all of the other "economics" babble.

I don't think he's ever been to another football stadium. 

He definitely hasn't.

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

Baylor, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have worse stadiums than KU at the moment.  K-State's was worse until the renovation.

 

yes, great quote lost amidst all of the other "economics" babble.

I don't think he's ever been to another football stadium. 

He definitely hasn't.

I'd value his opinion of the top disc golf courses

[OregonSmock]

Baylor, Texas Tech, and Iowa State all have worse stadiums than KU at the moment.  K-State's was worse until the renovation.

 

yes, great quote lost amidst all of the other "economics" babble.

I don't think he's ever been to another football stadium. 

He definitely hasn't.

You're definitely wrong.  Baylor's old stadium sucked.  Iowa State's is okay, but Memorial is in a better location and has a much bigger pressbox.  K-State's was pretty shitty until the recent renovation.  Texas Tech's stadium is arguably nicer than KU's, but it's in Lubbock, TX so that devalues it quite a bit in my book.

['taterblast]

i think he's right, guys. ku has AT LEAST the 6th best stadium in the league.

[420seriouscat69]

What a criteria you go by there, beems. Baylors is the worst and you've seen what they got coming, you're next in line in shitiness and I'm sorry, K-State's USE to be a dive, but it is no longer. It's beautiful. Why do you squawks live in the past? I mean I know these are hard times, but woof!

[star seed 7]

beems thinks memorial is at least better than "okay".

 

[GoodForAnother]

celebrate hard times, come on!

[Rage Against the McKee]

Texas Tech's stadium is actually pretty nice, Beems. It is much nicer than KU's and was also much nicer than K-State's before the renovation. This is assuming there isn't a sandstorm during the game, of course.

[PowercatPat]

Texas Tech's stadium being in Lubbock has nothing to do with how nice it is. JFC.