forums

"We aint got no money "

TheOriginalCane said:
Compared to Clemson's $76.3 million (2021)? Or even a 6-year average of $60 million per annum?

Yeah, $11 million is pretty fvckin' low.

Our OPERATING deficit to Clemson may be $4 million per year, but our FUND-RAISING deficit is at least $50 million...PER YEAR.

Remind me again how much the IPF cost? In just ONE YEAR, Clemson's IPTAY surplus could have built Miami's IPF. Think about that ****e. Every single year, Clemson out-fund-raises us by at least one IPF.

Ohhh, but we should keep Beta Blake because he's such a goooooood fund-raiser...
Click to expand...
What then what is Blake raising money for that makes him so respected?
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Fair points. If IPTAY brought in 2x what HC brings in, then I'd cite "enrollment". But they bring in SIX TIMES what Miami brings in. And I don't think it's all about pro sports.

We have six, MAYBE 7 home games per year. Stadium capacity has been reduced to 65K. Most games on Saturday. There stuff about "pro sports" is overblown. I understand hoops not selling out, but football is just nutty.
Click to expand...
As I stated in another thread, Hurricane Club membership was not mandatory this year for seasons. You want Florida season tickets it is a sizable donation for ****** seats. I guarantee you Clemson requires something similar.
 
Pentagon Cane said:
As I stated in another thread, Hurricane Club membership was not mandatory this year for seasons. You want Florida season tickets it is a sizable donation for ****** seats. I guarantee you Clemson requires something similar.
Click to expand...
people *****ed. The issue is the fan base by and large will not donate. We won’t be able to get away w the donations Florida requIres
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
1. Thanks for the biographical info on the newspaper, which I never mentioned.
2. I never said the author was a Ped State grad. I said he was the Ped State writer. Which, again, is accurate.
3. Thanks for the condescending lesson on libel vs. slander. It's as if I never got that A in Dignitary Torts. I should go yell at Katie Sowle. At any rate, I usually use the word "slander" with non-attorneys because it is a more familiar and well-known term. Plus, this: "Libel and slander are now treated alike and the same rules apply to a defamatory statement regardless of whether the statement is written or oral." But, hey, thanks for acting as if there was any sort of meaningful difference upon which you should lecture me. As for defamation, whether it is written or oral, you clearly don't know the elements of the tort, and I highly doubt that some ****-ant writer from some ****e-bag newspaper (hey, first published in 1854!!!) has caused Miami any damages.
4. Obvious. Sure. You should contact the school's legal department and get them to sue RSM McGladrey. But, hey, this intrepid reporter has obviously discovered MULTIPLE instances of "book-cooking", so it MUUUUST be true. Again, you fail to address why you feel that "revenue" was the "cooked" number, you were too busy getting huffy and lecturing me on "slander vs. libel".
5. I said nothing about a "requirement" to publicize the numbers, but the numbers have, indeed, been publicized. If you feel that UM has publicized fake numbers, again, you should contact the university's legal counsel.

Oh, but I see you are whining NOT about financial statements, but about an "EADA survey". Even more amusing, is the fact that you cut-and-pasted the following:

"For purposes of this survey, reported revenues must always equal or exceed reported expenses, otherwise the survey cannot be finalized, or “locked out” in the system."

So, to sum up, it is possible for revenue and expense to be EQUAL, even though you claimed that this was statistically impossible. Oh, but what about a situation where Expenses EXCEED Revenue? Thus, the "survey cannot be finalized" or "locked out in the system". Now, I'm not a math expert (I am), but is it POSSSSSIBLE that Miami reduced the Expenses to EQUAL Revenue, so that the report could be submitted?

Ohhhh...guess you didn't think of THAT one. But, sure, the "books are cooked".

Thanks for handing me the cut-paste evidence to hoist you by your own petard.
Click to expand...
The athletic department reimburses the cost of each players schooling to the university, which is why a lot of donors pay for players tuition…. Cookin the books
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, we'll make this simple.

You don't understand what the term "cooked the books" means, and what it implies.

Furthermore, you ASSUME that a situation where expenses exceed revenue would result in an INCREASE to revenue, instead of a DECREASE in expenses. But at least NOW you finally acknowledge that, yes Virginia, it is possible for Revenue and Expenses to be EQUAL for the survey.

And what you fail to realize, in your desperation to support a bogus argument that I have utterly DESTROYED is that UM would not run a deficit every year. Therefore, it is ridiculous to misstate revenue, since there will be a baseline in preceding and/or successive years.

Again, no books were "cooked". If Miami had to reduce its expense number in order to submit its report, so be it. And it doesn't matter if an accounting firm prepared the survey or not, as the audited financial statements are the starting point for the numbers in the survey.

But, sure, keep bloviating on things you know nothing about.

You have made yourself look foolish by arguing that a REQUIREMENT to NOT show a deficit on a survey constitutes "cooking the books".

It does not.

And such ignorant statements are, in fact, defamatory in nature. Even if all the elements of defamation cannot be established in court.

Yes, the author defamed three schools: "RU is one of 3 football programs in the data that appears to have cooked its books, presumably in order to not register a deficit." Which, of course, is an absolutely negligent conclusion to put into words, particularly when the rules of the survey REQUIRE no showing of a deficit.

This is why your entire post is the definition of INSANITY. Because your whole assumption is that a university would "cook its books" in order to show a lower expense level, while IGNORANTLY "cooking the books" to make Revenue and Expenses equal, as if nobody would notice. As if that's how it works. Rather than acknowledging that the financial results already exist, have been audited, have NOT been "cooked", and are REQUIRED to be stated without a deficit for purposes of the survey.

Again, LITERALLY, you do not understand what the words "cooking the books" mean.

Oh, and just for ****s and giggles, since F$U and Rutgers are both state universities, why don't you tell us what their audited financials say, and then compare that to the survey responses. Tell everyone how two public institutions "cooked the books" by falsifying their financials.
Click to expand...

Just admit you don't understand what an EADA report is.

It's not audited by the Dept of Education. These are not audited financial statements. It is not a Title IX report. It's nothing more than a survey posted on the Dept of Education website for consumers to decide if a school is treating female athlete's fairly. Schools can basically write whatever they want in the statements. Some schools will even include the cost of electricity to keep the lights on as a sports expense in the EADA reports to inflate their expenses and make it look like they are spending more money on the sports programs, even if the state 100% pays the light bill (which again, it benefits school to give the perception they are spending more money on sports).

You continue to claim the article's author defamed three schools and made false accusations about cooking the books. You must have some evidence to back that claim. Ok, what's your evidence UM didn't pull the numbers out of thin air? You should have no problem debunking it if you say all the data is out there proving UM's numbers are legitimate.
 
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
Compared to Clemson's $76.3 million (2021)? Or even a 6-year average of $60 million per annum?

Yeah, $11 million is pretty fvckin' low.

Our OPERATING deficit to Clemson may be $4 million per year, but our FUND-RAISING deficit is at least $50 million...PER YEAR.

Remind me again how much the IPF cost? In just ONE YEAR, Clemson's IPTAY surplus could have built Miami's IPF. Think about that ****e. Every single year, Clemson out-fund-raises us by at least one IPF.

Ohhh, but we should keep Beta Blake because he's such a goooooood fund-raiser...
Click to expand...

Real question is what were they raising before they starting winning titles.
 
Advertisement
MItami has money- more so than what people think. A few more billionaires than Clemson. We just have to win. few cities in the world have penthouses selling for 30mm plus. The. Idea that miami does not have money is baffling. We put a winning team on da field and this city will spend alumn or not
 
Insanecane said:
I stopped donations to the school when they :

1. Refused to guarantee that the money I donated would be spent on the football team.
2. Donna hired Shannon and went cheap even though we had made money off of our relatively recent success. Instead of expanding the football footprint she shrank it. I need to see a serious commitment to winning. Not this budget low key hires.

Every year they call and every year I emphasize these two points above. We’ll see who plays chicken first.
Click to expand...
You're really sticking it to the "man"
 
TimeBum said:
1. I posted the biographical info on the newspaper to show that the author was publishing for a newspaper's online site. If the newspaper allowed the author to knowingly post false information, it could be sued. They have a very significant financial interest to prevent any of their writers from committing libel. Here's what you said:

"'Cooked its books" is both false and downright slanderous. By the Ped State writer, of course."

False and slanderous? You are clearly accusing the author of defaming the university.

2. I assumed you were insinuating the Ped State writer was a PSU grad and trying to defame the university... because he's got something against Miami, FSU, and Rutgers, I guess? It is such a weird comment that it makes no sense. Ok so he's the beatwriter for Penn State. That gives him motivation to defame Miami, Rutgers, and FSU and put his employer's finances and reputation at stake? Here's what the author said in terms of cooking the books, which he led off with Rutgers.

"RU is one of 3 football programs in the data that appears to have cooked its books, presumably in order to not register a deficit."

It's not defamation (knowingly or unknowingly) because the three schools almost certainly cooked the books to not register a deficit since the rules for EADA say they can't have a net negative. If the true revenue number is $40 million and expenses are $60 million, the school HAS to report revenue as at least $60 million because revenue has to be at least as much as expenses in EADA report.

3. Oh you used "slander" instead of "libel" for the benefit of pea-brain site members who can't understand those fancy legal words. Sure you did.

4. You keep making the same mistake over and over again assuming the EADA report was prepared by an accounting firm (and extra points for name dropping the accounting firm, gives you real cred when you pretend to know what you are talking about). It's not an official accounting document. One more time- EADA reports are not an official accounting document. It's just a report from the Athletics Dept business office. You can go look up the report on the EADA website and see who prepared it.

I tell you what, let's make a bet- if you find anything that shows any accounting firm prepared UM's EADA report, I"ll take a 1 yr account ban. I won't ask you to put your account on the line.

5. Nice strawman argument. The real profit/loss statements for the university have not been published. Public universities have to provide a detailed accounting of all revenues and expenses because the are government institutions. Private universities do not have to publicly report their finances and most don't.

This should be layup if you say the real expense numbers have been published: what did UM officially disclose as Mark Richt's new salary after his 2018 contract extension? Go ahead and try to find it. I'll wait.

"So, to sum up, it is possible for revenue and expense to be EQUAL, even though you claimed that this was statistically impossible."

In EADA statements? Sure, you'll see that all the time in EADA reports. And those are almost certainly not the real financial figures being reported to the IRS. Any university that has revenue less than expenses is going to report revenue and expenses as equal (totaling zero) in its EADA report because that is an EADA requirement. EADA reports are basically useless for getting real data on private schools. For public schools they might be more accurate because it is easy to cross reference with the financial statements that are published by state law and fabrications would be obvious.

If you were to somehow get a look at the financial information provided to the IRS, it is a near statistically impossibility that Miami's net for the year would equal exactly zero. Just use some simple logic if you are capable of it: if you added up all the true revenue from parking lot fees, ticket sales, acc distribution, etc and then subtracted all the true expenses for new buildings, scholarships, coaching salaries, office supply expenses etc., what do you think are the chances that all those revenue amounts and expenses would total exactly zero?

Oh, but what about a situation where Expenses EXCEED Revenue? Thus, the "survey cannot be finalized" or "locked out in the system". Now, I'm not a math expert (I am), but is it POSSSSSIBLE that Miami reduced the Expenses to EQUAL Revenue, so that the report could be submitted?

Yes, it is possible Miami reduced the actual expenses to equal revenue. Or inversely (and more likely), Miami inflated revenue to equal expenses for purposes of the EADA report.

Why would they choose to inflate revenue to equal zero instead of reduce expenses? Because the point of the EADA is to show prospective students how much the university is committed to providing equitable athletic opportunities for its men and women students. The biggest expense number, by far, in the EADA report is athletic scholarships. It would be self-sabotage to reduce the scholarship numbers because then it would look like the university isn't providing athletic opportunities (when schools have been sued over EADA reports, it for vastly overinflating the scholarship numbers, not the other way around). They could also artificially reduce the expenses for travel, coaching etc (the other significant expense categories) but again, if they showed a low number on the EADA in the categories, people would ask "why aren't you spending more on coaches and travel.' It makes no sense to show a reduction in expenses. If the school has 60 million in expenses and 40 million in revenue, it would be beyond stupid for them to report 40 million in expenses just to make revenue match expenses. It would make the school look like it's not providing students with as many opportunities as other schools by comparison. Conversely if the expenses are $60 million and revenues are $40 million, the school will just say it made $60 million in revenue. It's a fake number just like the reduced expenditure number, but it is better to look like you are spending more. One way or another it is cooking the books.


" is it POSSSSSIBLE that Miami reduced the Expenses to EQUAL Revenue, so that the report could be submitted?

So you are asking if it is possible they cooked the books in the opposite direction to be able to submit the report? Sure. And btw thanks for admitting the school POSSSSBILLLY cooked the books.

Note: I went back and edited my post to take out the insults as you seem like a decent guy. Anyways, your turn.
Click to expand...

Not reading all of that, but the part of Richt’s salary is wrong. It’s in the form 990. You can look it up
 
Advertisement
bear said:
MItami has money- more so than what people think. A few more billionaires than Clemson. We just have to win. few cities in the world have penthouses selling for 30mm plus. The. Idea that miami does not have money is baffling. We put a winning team on da field and this city will spend alumn or not
Click to expand...
The city won’t spend at the rate sbig schools do. A lot of those people w money aren’t Miami fans
 
BigCaneAl said:
Not reading all of that, but the part of Richt’s salary is wrong. It’s in the form 990. You can look it up
Click to expand...

That form 990 for 2018 appears to be his 2017 salary (before the contract extension). We knew his original contract was about 4 mil per year. I asked about salary after the new 2018 contract extension (which I think he signed in May 2018). No one (outside the school) knows the actual amount. Public universities are required to state the terms of new contracts, private schools don't. Since he retired in 2018, no one knows how much he was set to get paid. Was it 4.5 mil per year? 5 mil? Your guess is as good as mine.

As for the accuracy of the form 990s: According to Notre Dame's Form 990 for 2019, Brian Kelly only made 1.8 million. Obviously he was making far more than that. The school isn't required to report the amount paid directly to the HC from the sponsor to Under Armour OR the amount paid directly to Kelly's LLC.

Miami's form 990 could show a 4 million salary, but Richt could also have had his contract structured to receive a set amount of money from Adidas. I dodn't know if the Miami-Adidas contract was structured that way, but there is nothing that would prevent it and it wouldn't show up on the 990.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
TimeBum said:
That form 990 for 2018 appears to be his 2017 salary (before the contract extension). We knew his original contract was about 4 mil per year. I asked about salary after the new 2018 contract extension (which I think he signed in May 2018). No one (outside the school) knows the actual amount. Public universities are required to state the terms of new contracts, private schools don't. Since he retired in 2018, no one knows how much he was set to get paid. Was it 4.5 mil per year? 5 mil? Your guess is as good as mine.
Click to expand...

Are you saying they didn’t disclose a salary they didn’t pay in their financial disclosures for 2019? And, that’s your argument for UM not disclosing true financial expenses? Umm, might want to think about that one. The 2018 salary is out the, and the 2019 number for Manny is in the 2020 disclosure, although that looks like it includes the buyout at Temple. Seems that was more than 4M though since it shows his total as $9.5M

Actually, went and looked at the 2019 disclosure and shows Richt’s salary for fiscal 2019 as 4.3M. Clearly says period ending May 31, 2019, which is the school fiscal year end.
 
BigCaneAl said:
Are you saying they didn’t disclose a salary they didn’t pay in their financial disclosures for 2019? And, that’s your argument for UM not disclosing true financial expenses? Umm, might want to think about that one. The 2018 salary is out the, and the 2019 number for Manny is in the 2019 disclosure, although that looks like it includes the buyout at Temple. Seems that was more than 4M though since it shows his total as $9.5M
Click to expand...

They disclosed what they are legally required to disclose but it could be only a fraction of his actual compensation since school's can leave out a lot of financial info on the Form 990s. For example, according to Notre Dame's Form 990 for 2019, Brian Kelly only made 1.8 million. Obviously he was making far more than that. The school isn't required to report the amount paid directly to the HC from the sponsor (Under Armour) OR the amount paid directly to Kelly's LLC.

Miami's form 990 could show a 4 million salary, but Richt could also have had his contract structured to receive a set amount of money from Adidas. I don't know if the Miami-Adidas contract was structured that way, but there is nothing that would prevent it and it wouldn't show up on the 990.
 
TimeBum said:
They disclosed what they are legally required to disclose but it could be only a fraction of his actual compensation since school's can leave out a lot of financial info on the Form 990s. For example, according to Notre Dame's Form 990 for 2019, Brian Kelly only made 1.8 million. Obviously he was making far more than that. The school isn't required to report the amount paid directly to the HC from the sponsor to Under Armour OR the amount paid directly to Kelly's LLC.

Miami's form 990 could show a 4 million salary, but Richt could also have had his contract structured to receive a set amount of money from Adidas. I don't know if the Miami-Adidas contract was structured that way, but there is nothing that would prevent it and it wouldn't show up on the 990.
Click to expand...

We do not have those arrangements to support salaries….it’s been discussed. Richt was not getting anything funneled from Adidas Or a booster…..but anyway, talk about straw man.
 
BigCaneAl said:
We do not have those arrangements to support salaries….it’s been discussed. Richt was not getting anything funneled from Adidas Or a booster…..but anyway, talk about straw man.
Click to expand...

Strawman? Where has it ever been discussed on this site that the school's official sponsor is not allowed to sign a separate contract with the head coach?

Yes, I am aware the school has a policy of not allowing boosters to pay a coaches salary (which I disagree with, but that's a different conversation).
 
Advertisement
Back
Top