Pages:
Actions
  • #51 by ricepig on 31 Oct 2017
  • Not anymore we don't.  We just took on bonds for a stadium expansion. 

    How do you know our revenue didn't increase, as well?
  • #52 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017
  • Dumb article.  Everyone knows that people are dropping cable and satellite.  People watch tv using this crazy stuff called the internets. Every tv station is losing viewers. Next are we going to get a post about how CD sales are down due to the political views of the artists? Geez

    Show me in my post where I referenced the politics.  I actually said to ignore it. Did I not?
  • #53 by factchecker on 31 Oct 2017
  • Not anymore we don't.  We just took on bonds for a stadium expansion. 

    You don't know how this works do you?

    The bonds are payed over a time period.

    Here is a powerpoint to help you out:

    http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DWRRS-Renovation-and-NEZ-Addition-BOT-Presentation.pdf

  • #54 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017
  • How do you know our revenue didn't increase, as well?

    I guess we'll have to wait for the numbers.  But let's just say that I'm confident that revenue did not increase in the proportion as the debt maintenance.
  • #55 by factchecker on 31 Oct 2017
  • Not anymore we don't.  We just took on bonds for a stadium expansion.

    Also, you need to answer the question:

    Since we are worried about our 19 million dollar in the black program..... What do you do if you are a program that currently breaks even? There are a ton of athletic programs (some in state) who barely make enough money to operate. Do they increase student fees? Do they take more taxpayer money?
  • #56 by Razorbackers on 31 Oct 2017
  • Show me in my post where I referenced the politics.  I actually said to ignore it. Did I not?

  • #57 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017
  • You don't know how this works do you?

    The bonds are payed over a time period.

    Here is a powerpoint to help you out:

    http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DWRRS-Renovation-and-NEZ-Addition-BOT-Presentation.pdf

    2016...doesn't mention the $160 million in new debt at all.
  • #58 by factchecker on 31 Oct 2017
  • Since we are talking about debt:

  • #59 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017
  • Also, you need to answer the question:

    Since we are worried about our 19 million dollar in the black program..... What do you do if you are a program that currently breaks even? There are a ton of athletic programs (some in state) who barely make enough money to operate. Do they increase student fees? Do they take more taxpayer money?

    I don't care about them.  But EVERYONE will have to figure it out.  Winning at a high level is part of the equation.
  • #60 by rhames on 31 Oct 2017
  • Breitbart is garbage. This is propaganda. ESPN is losing subscribers because everyone is losing subscribers.

    Correct.


  • #61 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017
  • Since we are talking about debt:



    So add the $56 million on the chart you showed to $160 million we're about to take on and we'll be right square in the middle of that graph with over $200 million in debt.
  • #62 by jackflash on 31 Oct 2017
  • I am not a win at all cost fan. wish we were winning more but not at the cost of graduation rates of are players
  • #63 by rhames on 31 Oct 2017
  • Show me in my post where I referenced the politics.  I actually said to ignore it. Did I not?


    I'm sure there would be no bias at all from the rightwing website talking about how a left wing channel is failing.
  • #64 by factchecker on 31 Oct 2017
  • So add the $56 million on the chart you showed to $160 we're about to take on and we'll be right square in the middle of that graph with over $200 million in debt.

    You realize that other schools take on more debt as well.

    LSU had to pay the buyout for Les and his assistants.

    Minnesota had to buyout Fleck's contract.

    Texas had to buyout Charlie and pay for Herman while expanding/renovating their locker room.

    We are also retiring a good portion of that 56 million over the next 6 years.
  • #65 by Razorbackers on 31 Oct 2017

  • I'm sure there would be no bias at all from the rightwing website talking about how a left wing channel is failing.

    Ignore the fact that nothing in this article can be trusted and lets talk about the article.
  • #66 by hogsanity on 31 Oct 2017
  • Said a few years ago that someday the college football bubble would burst, all bubbles do at some point. BUT.........

    Those thinking that ESPN equals all tv money are crazy. IS overall viewership down, when calculating all modes of viewing, that is the key. The content owners, in this case the conferences, are going to figure out how to get their pound of flesh out of everyone carrying their product. Of course they are not charging smaller, newer providers what they charge a cbs or espn, YET, but they will when they know they are big enough to pay it.

    I remember when I worked in programming for a cable tv company and ESPN broke the $1 per subscriber price barrier. We were all aghast. Now they charge 7 or 8 or maybe more times that. Why, because of what they were paying for content. Eventually the SEC is going to get X total $'s for their product. People who think they are going to always be able to get content for next to nothing via streaming are not looking at history to see how owners of content always find a way to maximize what they own.

     
  • #67 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017

  • I'm sure there would be no bias at all from the rightwing website talking about how a left wing channel is failing.

    Do you dispute the numbers?
  • #68 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017
  • You realize that other schools take on more debt as well.

    LSU had to pay the buyout for Les and his assistants.

    Minnesota had to buyout Fleck's contract.

    Texas had to buyout Charlie and pay for Herman while expanding/renovating their locker room.

    We are also retiring a good portion of that 56 million over the next 6 years.

    Oh, so other schools don't retire debt too?  Don't post something showing the schools with the most debt without acknowledging that we will be about number four or five on that list next year. 
  • #69 by factchecker on 31 Oct 2017
  • Oh, so other schools don't retire debt too?  Don't post something showing the schools with the most debt without acknowledging that we will be about number four or five on that list next year.

    This reminds me of the people pissed when we win.

    I'm sorry that the athletic program isn't falling apart like you wish.

    Keep fantasizing about these doomsday scenarios where the Razorbacks lose money.

    Sorry for your loss.
  • #70 by Razorbackers on 31 Oct 2017
  • Don't post something

    Take your own advice, fam.
  • #71 by East TN HAWG on 31 Oct 2017
  • Obviously, the next go around will involve live streaming.  The best possible result would be if something like Netflix basically steps into the place of ESPN and pays conferences big money for the right to live stream their games.  Things might not change too much then. 

    Amazon Prime is the most likely candidate.  They are looking at placing a huge bid in for NFL football.  I thing the are now streaming a couple of Thursday night/ London games.  Amazon's play is not only the prime viewers, but more importantly the prime purchasers.  People that have prime are (something like) 3X more likely to purchase from Amazon.  The money on the products sold is Amazons angle. 

    I could easily see them expanding into other markets such as the SEC.
  • #72 by Locutus_of_Boar on 31 Oct 2017
  •   Ignore the political content of the link and focus on the numbers. 

    Indeed, ESPN and all other broad bases cable channels have been bleeding subscribers for more than five years as more and more people cut the cable but ESPN is not losing viewers.  Breitbart just is trying ta spin on easily confused numbers to suit their politics.

    In terms of Arkansas you make a valid point.  Long is living right now on the fact that Arkansas is in the SEC and is guaranteed good payouts for a number of years yet but in the long haul he has to make the program pull its weight.  I think he expects to be long gone before his poor successor has to fix all his mistakes.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-losing-subscribers-not-ratings-viewers-2017-9

  • #73 by factchecker on 31 Oct 2017
  • If you are so worried then write a check to the foundation.

    Don't want to support Bielema?  You can donate money to baseball or to track and field.

    Hell, you can even give money to the general fund.

    There is even a way to donate if you are not a foundation member:

    https://onlinegiving.uark.edu/?designation=Other+Department+or+Program&otherDesignation=Intercollegiate+Athletics
  • #74 by hogsanity on 31 Oct 2017
  • Amazon Prime is the most likely candidate.  They are looking at placing a huge bid in for NFL football.  I thing the are now streaming a couple of Thursday night/ London games.  Amazon's play is not only the prime viewers, but more importantly the prime purchasers.  People that have prime are (something like) 3X more likely to purchase from Amazon.  The money on the products sold is Amazons angle. 

    I could easily see them expanding into other markets such as the SEC.

    Like I said, someone is going to pay the SEC what the SEC thinks their product is worth. Instead of it being just ESPN and CBS, others will have the plate passed to them too.

    Do people, no you, really think the SEC and it's members are going to watch revenues from media go down?
  • #75 by Razorbackers on 31 Oct 2017
  • Breitbart just is trying ta spin on easily confused numbers to suit their politics.

    You're gonna get allcaps'd. lol
  • #76 by hogsanity on 31 Oct 2017
  • Indeed, ESPN and all other broad bases cable channels have been bleeding subscribers for more than five years as more and more people cut the cable but ESPN is not losing viewers.  Breitbart just is trying ta spin on easily confused numbers to suit their politics.

    In terms of Arkansas you make a valid point.  Long is living right now on the fact that Arkansas is in the SEC and is guaranteed good payouts for a number of years yet but in the long haul he has to make the program pull its weight.  I think he expects to be long gone before his poor successor has to fix all his mistakes.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-losing-subscribers-not-ratings-viewers-2017-9



    They are not losing viewers but they are losing revenue because of how their fee structure was set up. They were paid X per subscriber to whatever level of cable they were on, and it did not matter if anyone watched ( as far as cable subscriber revenue ). If TW carried ESPn on basic, then ESPN got X per basic subscriber on TW. So if TW sees basic cable subscribers drop by 10%, ESPN sees it's revenues from TW drop by 10%.
  • #77 by rhames on 31 Oct 2017
  • Do you dispute the numbers?


    I couldn't even get past the first paragraph. It's a slam piece.


    If you're asking what I think will happen in the whole cord cutting phenomenon I would say that it is already happening. As Netflix and others continue to raise the price it will be just , if not close to, as expensive as cable now,  whom are lowering their prices to keep people.


    If the time comes when the contracts with ESPN are up and they can't renew, someone else will.
  • #78 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017
  • Indeed, ESPN and all other broad bases cable channels have been bleeding subscribers for more than five years as more and more people cut the cable but ESPN is not losing viewers.  Breitbart just is trying ta spin on easily confused numbers to suit their politics.

    In terms of Arkansas you make a valid point.  Long is living right now on the fact that Arkansas is in the SEC and is guaranteed good payouts for a number of years yet but in the long haul he has to make the program pull its weight.  I think he expects to be long gone before his poor successor has to fix all his mistakes.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-losing-subscribers-not-ratings-viewers-2017-9

    Hence the portion of my post that said, "Not only is ESPN dying but television as it is known as well."
  • #79 by 247Hog on 31 Oct 2017
  • Since we are talking about debt:



    These are numbers for 2014?
  • #80 by 98hogs on 31 Oct 2017
  • subscribers in a month.  Ignore the political content of the link and focus on the numbers.  ESPN may go belly up and even if it doesn't, it is unlikely that it renews the massive contract with the SEC.  Not only is ESPN dying but television as it is known is as well.  I don't know what will happen in the future, I have some ideas, but if you are viewed as a habitually losing program when things roll around for the next big thing, it might not be good.  We've got seven or eight years before the contract runs out.  We need to get it right and be in good shape when it does.

    http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/10/31/espn-lost-480000-subscribers-october/
    ESPN wanted to push the Liberal agenda.  Most American males won't tolerate the garbage they push, thus they lose.
  • #81 by RyanMallettsEgo on 31 Oct 2017
  • If you are so worried then write a check to the foundation.

    Don't want to support Bielema?  You can donate money to baseball or to track and field.

    Hell, you can even give money to the general fund.

    There is even a way to donate if you are not a foundation member:

    https://onlinegiving.uark.edu/?designation=Other+Department+or+Program&otherDesignation=Intercollegiate+Athletics

    Why do that when they can just bitch on here about stuff that'll never happen??
  • #82 by rhames on 31 Oct 2017
  • ESPN wanted to push the Liberal agenda.  Most American males won't tolerate the garbage they push, thus they lose.


    Except they have been losing subscribers fast for the past 5 years and have just started the "liberal agenda" in the past 18 months.


    ESPN is failing because of other issues, they have gone political as a strategy to have some kind of edge and it probably isn't working.
  • #83 by razorbackfaninar on 31 Oct 2017
  • Indeed, ESPN and all other broad bases cable channels have been bleeding subscribers for more than five years as more and more people cut the cable but ESPN is not losing viewers.  Breitbart just is trying ta spin on easily confused numbers to suit their politics.

    In terms of Arkansas you make a valid point.  Long is living right now on the fact that Arkansas is in the SEC and is guaranteed good payouts for a number of years yet but in the long haul he has to make the program pull its weight.  I think he expects to be long gone before his poor successor has to fix all his mistakes.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-losing-subscribers-not-ratings-viewers-2017-9

    This isn't accurate. Long has benefited from the SEC money that is true enough.  He got here in 2008 and since 2008 contributions went up from 12 million to 25 million in 2016, so he's roughly doubled contributions. Ticket sales are up 10 million in 2016 from 2008 as well. So he's managed to increase revenue from ticket sales as well during a time when the main revenue generating programs are not exactly setting the world on fire. He increased revenue by more than 30 million between 2008 and 2015 when the SEC network money kicked in and at that point revenue jumped from 96 to 114 million.  You may not like Jeff Long but he has brought a ton of money into the program apart from the money that we are getting from the SEC network.  We do a lot of things wrong at Arkansas, and there are a lot of things I wish we did better, but financially we do great, and like it or not Jeff long is a big part of the reason for that.
  • #84 by ballz2thewall on 31 Oct 2017
  • breitbart.............

    really?
  • #85 by hogsanity on 31 Oct 2017
  • Hence the portion of my post that said, "Not only is ESPN dying but television as it is known as well."

    Again, though, do you not think the content owners are going to get what they think their content is worth? All these delivery platforms need content to actually deliver to their customers.
  • #86 by hehawg on 31 Oct 2017
  • ESPN is Owned by Disney, they aren't going out of business anytime soon. They are losing subscribers for the same reason that TNT and other cable channels are losing them at almost the same clip.  People either can't afford or don't want to pay the cost of cable.  What you are seeing is a regression to the mean as people with no interest in live sports no longer see the value in paying for cable.  This is a direct result of the rise of Hulu and Netflix. There was a time when people had no alternative, they would pay for ESPN because everything came in a bundle.  They didn't subscribe directly to ESPN it was just a part of whatever bundle, usually a tier two package, that they subscribed to.  Now people are dropping cable all together or just retaining a basic package to have their local channels.  Disney is launching it's own streaming service soon to compete with Netflix and my guess will be that streaming content is the next avenue that ESPN will take as well.  So in the future you will probably pay a flat fee like 9.99 per month and have access to all ESPN content

     $9.99 sounds expensive with the political garbage ESPN has had for some time now.
  • #87 by razorbackfaninar on 31 Oct 2017
  • $9.99 sounds expensive with the political garbage ESPN has had for some time now.

    Like What?
  • #88 by RyanMallettsEgo on 31 Oct 2017
  • This isn't accurate. Long has benefited from the SEC money that is true enough.  He got here in 2008 and since 2008 contributions went up from 12 million to 25 million in 2016, so he's roughly doubled contributions. Ticket sales are up 10 million in 2016 from 2008 as well. So he's managed to increase revenue from ticket sales as well during a time when the main revenue generating programs are not exactly setting the world on fire. He increased revenue by more than 30 million between 2008 and 2015 when the SEC network money kicked in and at that point revenue jumped from 96 to 114 million.  You may not like Jeff Long but he has brought a ton of money into the program apart from the money that we are getting from the SEC network.  We do a lot of things wrong at Arkansas, and there are a lot of things I wish we did better, but financially we do great, and like it or not Jeff long is a big part of the reason for that.

    Good post.

    Now we get to wait and see these Einsteins come up with laughable reasons to argue against the hard numbers you posted.
  • #89 by Redhogs on 31 Oct 2017
  • ESPN too political.
    That's why MANY have quit watching, if I want to hear Nancy Piglosi yammer it won't be on ESPN
  • #90 by rhames on 31 Oct 2017
  • $9.99 sounds expensive with the political garbage ESPN has had for some time now.


    I mean you could just watch the games and ya know, not watch the other stuff
  • #91 by razorbackfaninar on 31 Oct 2017
  • ESPN wanted to push the Liberal agenda.  Most American males won't tolerate the garbage they push, thus they lose.

    I watch games on ESPN, I'll admit I don't watch much else.  I don't watch the talk shows etc.  I'll watch a good 30 for 30 but mostly what I watch are the games .  What is this Liberal agenda they are pushing?  They want to raise taxes on the wealthy, give everyone free health care, what?
  • #92 by hawgon on 31 Oct 2017
  • Again, though, do you not think the content owners are going to get what they think their content is worth? All these delivery platforms need content to actually deliver to their customers.

    What I think my product is worth may or may not have anything to do with the actual market evaluation of my product.  I my have to adjust my thinking accordingly.  Likewise, I think it is a potentially mistaken assumption to assume that the SEC keeps the same "all for one and one for all" philosophy on doing things.  The league is much more top heavy than it was when this contract was negotiated.  And besides, questions like that are leadership issues.  Different leadership begets different solutions.  If Mike Slive had been the commissioner of the Big 12 instead of the SEC when the last round of negotiations happened, things might have turned out differently.
  • #93 by razorbackfaninar on 31 Oct 2017
  • That's why MANY have quit watching, if I want to hear Nancy Piglosi yammer it won't be on ESPN

    When was Nancy Pelosi on ESPN?
  • #94 by Redhogs on 31 Oct 2017

  • I mean you could just watch the games and ya know, not watch the other stuff
    Exactly what is happening..live stream the games, no need to subscribe to the channels, as many are now doing = lost subscribers.
  • #95 by ballz2thewall on 31 Oct 2017
  • ESPN wanted to push the Liberal agenda.  Most American males won't tolerate the garbage they push, thus they lose.

    yeah......we can't have none-o-that liberal agenda, man. that'd be bad for the men.
  • #96 by rhames on 31 Oct 2017
  • I watch games on ESPN, I'll admit I don't watch much else.  I don't watch the talk shows etc.  I'll watch a good 30 for 30 but mostly what I watch are the games .  What is this Liberal agenda they are pushing?  They want to raise taxes on the wealthy, give everyone free health care, what?


    Most of their talking head stood up for Kapernick and don't like the president.


    I do exactly what you do. Couldn't care less what what Steven A Smiths opinions are. I'm sure he has some I agree with and some I don't. They all have a right to their opinion. I'm still going to watch my football.
  • #97 by hehawg on 31 Oct 2017

  • I mean you could just watch the games and ya know, not watch the other stuff

     Not with remote hugging ESPN junkies at work
  • #98 by Redhogs on 31 Oct 2017
  • When was Nancy Pelosi on ESPN?
    Certainly you are not as dumb as your question...oh wait....
  • #99 by rhames on 31 Oct 2017
  • Exactly what is happening..live stream the games, no need to subscribe to the channels, as many are now doing = lost subscribers.


    If you are live streaming the games without a subscription you're pretty much stealing lol.
  • #100 by hehawg on 31 Oct 2017
Pages:
Actions