10-7 Coaches Show

[HogDawg]

About double what your reported.

The deal we cut with them is not the problem, it's that we don't hold them accountable to do what they are supposed to do on their part and their production is HORRIBLE.

[Exes&Ohs]

About double what your reported.

The deal we cut with them is not the problem, it's that we don't hold them accountable to do what they are supposed to do on their part and their production is HORRIBLE.

Pa, not to argue but just to keep everything above board the contract with Learfield was for about 10 yrs and expired the last of June this year. The $655,000 figure was in effect as of June 2018 with one year to go as verified by the last audit. People throw stuff around as if it were factual thus confuses a lot of people. Again, the $655,000 figure was the contracted amount thru June 2019. Anybody have any info as to the figure upon renewal? Also, we DO NOT PAY Learfield to do anything, they have paid US a set figure for a long time. If we want to dig down to the core and marrow then lets find out why they cant sell more ads, etc. Is it because the extra effort isnt worth it, is it because they have a LIMITED market base and cant find anyone else interested, etc?

[PawDawg]

The 2018 audit released was for year ending June 2017. The 2019 audit released was for year ending June 2018. You've already seen an audit that includes year ending June 2019?

Learfield takes a cut which is the same as getting paid. Learfield ignores its customers. We lose large contributors every year due to Learfield's neglect.

[The Historian]

Pa, not to argue but just to keep everything above board the contract with Learfield was for about 10 yrs and expired the last of June this year. The $655,000 figure was in effect as of June 2018 with one year to go as verified by the last audit. People throw stuff around as if it were factual thus confuses a lot of people.

So if the deal wasn't renegotiated a few years ago and - as you say - our deal with Learfield expired in June, how are we still with them?

[Champ967]

The deal we cut with them is not the problem, it's that we don't hold them accountable to do what they are supposed to do on their part and their production is HORRIBLE.

Considering Learfield's extensive network of client institutions … and considering what we know of TMac's career ambitions …

It would make sense for him not to "rock the boat" with Learfield.

[DallasDog]

What if we just shove him overboard??

[Exes&Ohs]

So if the deal wasn't renegotiated a few years ago and - as you say - our deal with Learfield expired in June, how are we still with them?

La Tech FOUNDATION negotiated with La Tech UNIVERSITY back in late 2008 for athletic media rights for a ten year period beginning 7/1/2009 and ending 6/30/2019 for $200,000 annually. La Tech FOUNDATION immediately negotiated with LEARFIELD giving them the media rights for same time period ending 6/30/2019 for $655,253 annually. The FOUNDATION was guaranteed that amount with clauses providing more if certain goals were met, none of which ever materialized. The contract expired just recently and I have not seen anything concerning its renewal, etc. I do wonder if the La Tech ATHLETIC dept had any side deals with Learfield during that time, details would be very interesting and would shed a light on a lot of questions.

[The Historian]

La Tech FOUNDATION negotiated with La Tech UNIVERSITY back in late 2008 for athletic media rights for a ten year period beginning 7/1/2009 and ending 6/30/2019 for $200,000 annually. La Tech FOUNDATION immediately negotiated with LEARFIELD giving them the media rights for same time period ending 6/30/2019 for $655,253 annually. The FOUNDATION was guaranteed that amount with clauses providing more if certain goals were met, none of which ever materialized. The contract expired just recently and I have not seen anything concerning its renewal, etc. I do wonder if the La Tech ATHLETIC dept had any side deals with Learfield during that time, details would be very interesting and would shed a light on a lot of questions.

I've told you - as has another poster - that the deal was renegotiated years ago. In addition, don't assume that the revenue it generates is all on the athletic department's books or that it's all in direct cash payments.

Also, I think you have good intentions in trying to post information you believe to be accurate and giving your take on it, but please don't accuse other people of posting and spreading "misinformation", especially about Tech's budget or finances.

Literally everyone who regularly posts here or on the other board about our budget or contracts has an idea of what they're talking about. We have posters who range from accounting professionals to individuals with decades of experience in corporate finance.

[eagle2180]

I've told you - as has another poster - that the deal was renegotiated years ago. In addition, don't assume that the revenue it generates is all on the athletic department's books or that it's all in direct cash payments.

Also, I think you have good intentions in trying to post information you believe to be accurate and giving your take on it, but please don't accuse other people of posting and spreading "misinformation", especially about Tech's budget or finances.

Literally everyone who regularly posts here or on the other board about our budget or contracts has an idea of what they're talking about. We have posters who range from accounting professionals to individuals with decades of experience in corporate finance.

So what is the correct information? Please share.

[Exes&Ohs]

I've told you - as has another poster - that the deal was renegotiated years ago. In addition, don't assume that the revenue it generates is all on the athletic department's books or that it's all in direct cash payments.

Also, I think you have good intentions in trying to post information you believe to be accurate and giving your take on it, but please don't accuse other people of posting and spreading "misinformation", especially about Tech's budget or finances.

Literally everyone who regularly posts here or on the other board about our budget or contracts has an idea of what they're talking about. We have posters who range from accounting professionals to individuals with decades of experience in corporate finance.

Can you check with one of the accounting professionals you mentiooned and get his thinking on this "renegotiation" you mention occured several years ago. The last auditors report, and that is all the documentation I have, shows as late as fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 that the contract is still in force with the $655,253 payments from Learfield still being made as agreed. Edit Note: This contract is between the Foundation and Learfield, none of the transactions would show up on the Athletic Dept books other than the money turned over to them by the foundation which is included in contributions.

[The Historian]

Can you check with one of the accounting professionals you mentiooned and get his thinking on this "renegotiation" you mention occured several years ago. The last auditors report, and that is all the documentation I have, shows as late as fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 that the contract is still in force with the $655,253 payments from Learfield still being made as agreed. Edit Note: This contract is between the Foundation and Learfield, none of the transactions would show up on the Athletic Dept books other than the money turned over to them by the foundation which is included in contributions.

Or you could FOIA it from the Foundation.

[Champ967]

Or you could FOIA it from the Foundation.

Foundation isnt a public entity, it's a private non-profit, and not subject to FOI.

(That, btw, is kind of the WHOLE POINT of running a govt agency's business thru a foundation)

[Exes&Ohs]

Foundation isnt a public entity, it's a private non-profit, and not subject to FOI.

(That, btw, is kind of the WHOLE POINT of running a govt agency's business thru a foundation)

I hope that comment isnt intended to degrade the Foundation. Without them there would be no new pressbox as they are the ones loaning the money for that.

[The Historian]

Foundation isnt a public entity, it's a private non-profit, and not subject to FOI.

(That, btw, is kind of the WHOLE POINT of running a govt agency's business thru a foundation)

Correct. The law that shields the foundation wasn't aimed at Tech when it was established, but another school in the state.

[stodgdog]

The 2018 audit released was for year ending June 2017. The 2019 audit released was for year ending June 2018. You've already seen an audit that includes year ending June 2019?

Learfield takes a cut which is the same as getting paid. Learfield ignores its customers. We lose large contributors every year due to Learfield's neglect.

E.g. ?