No one has more to lose in a redistribution of the PUF than Texas. Dook knows this. But hey Dook how about you "cut us loose" with our third of the PUF, tu can take a third and we give the other third to Tech and the smaller state schools. That sounds fair. tu has been taking 2/3 at the expense of Tech and other state schools for too long!
Randolph Duke
768,917 Views |
3764 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by goodAg80
And that's why nobody but this idiot will even broach the subject, much less actively bring it up to the Legislature.
The next step for the PUF will not be to cut A&M out and give it all to tu. The next step will be to take it all back and redistribute it among all the state schools.
The next step for the PUF will not be to cut A&M out and give it all to tu. The next step will be to take it all back and redistribute it among all the state schools.
I just don't have the life force.....
Quote:
The formula is: net operating profit=gross revenue=operating expenses. Which, for a g g y was $57 million
From net operating profit, they then had to pay the outstanding invoice for capital expenditures. Which, for a g g y, was $57 million (item #56 in the annual financial report).
After paying operating expenses and capital expenditures, what was left would be free cash flow, which they could use as they pleased, if there was any left, which there wasn't.
The $26 million "debt service" was interest and principal on the $350 million bond issuance. In addition to the $350 million, they still had to pay an additional $130 million out of pocket. The $57 million they paid (item #56 on the financial report) was the last remaining balance on the $130 million they owed out of pocket (the actual donations by the alumni).
If you are obligated to pay 20% of the remodel costs out of pocket at the end of the remodel, you can't just make the annual mortgage payment, decide not to pay the 20% of the remodel costs you were obligated to pay out of pocket, and then claim you have the 20% left over to spend any way you want. You still owe the 20% you promised to pay out of pocket.
The $57 million "profit" isn't free cash flow. It was net of operating costs, not net of operating expenses and capital expenditures. It was a capita expenditure, contractually obligated to the construction company when the project was started, to be paid at completion of the project. a g g y is claiming they didn't have to pay what they promised to pay and can instead spend it on bloated coaching salaries, when in reality they paid it as obligated. You can't spend the same $57 million twice - once on the remodel, and once however you like.
That is my problem.
Dude, that is SOOOO not your problem....
Most of the mouth-breathers that gobble up his Aggie financial disaster novels will never have a checking account.
Does he not realize that capital expenditures are part of operating costs?
He doesn't realize a lot of things...
Well, we must be printing our own money, because we got a new stadium and a new expensive coach.
Wut?? Not an accountant but that was a lot of jibberish with "accounting words" thrown in.realestateguru said:
I just don't have the life force.....Quote:
The formula is: net operating profit=gross revenue=operating expenses. Which, for a g g y was $57 million
From net operating profit, they then had to pay the outstanding invoice for capital expenditures. Which, for a g g y, was $57 million (item #56 in the annual financial report).
After paying operating expenses and capital expenditures, what was left would be free cash flow, which they could use as they pleased, if there was any left, which there wasn't.
The $26 million "debt service" was interest and principal on the $350 million bond issuance. In addition to the $350 million, they still had to pay an additional $130 million out of pocket. The $57 million they paid (item #56 on the financial report) was the last remaining balance on the $130 million they owed out of pocket (the actual donations by the alumni).
If you are obligated to pay 20% of the remodel costs out of pocket at the end of the remodel, you can't just make the annual mortgage payment, decide not to pay the 20% of the remodel costs you were obligated to pay out of pocket, and then claim you have the 20% left over to spend any way you want. You still owe the 20% you promised to pay out of pocket.
The $57 million "profit" isn't free cash flow. It was net of operating costs, not net of operating expenses and capital expenditures. It was a capita expenditure, contractually obligated to the construction company when the project was started, to be paid at completion of the project. a g g y is claiming they didn't have to pay what they promised to pay and can instead spend it on bloated coaching salaries, when in reality they paid it as obligated. You can't spend the same $57 million twice - once on the remodel, and once however you like.
That is my problem.
Look, I'm an ol' Southern woman and we don't put our special needs children under the porch anymore but the shag really needs to weigh how badly Randy's becoming the face of sip fans.
If they are okay with being a laughing stock with him as the face of their fanbase, then well done.
aggiehawg said:Wut?? Not an accountant but that was a lot of jibberish with "accounting words" thrown in.realestateguru said:
I just don't have the life force.....Quote:
The formula is: net operating profit=gross revenue=operating expenses. Which, for a g g y was $57 million
From net operating profit, they then had to pay the outstanding invoice for capital expenditures. Which, for a g g y, was $57 million (item #56 in the annual financial report).
After paying operating expenses and capital expenditures, what was left would be free cash flow, which they could use as they pleased, if there was any left, which there wasn't.
The $26 million "debt service" was interest and principal on the $350 million bond issuance. In addition to the $350 million, they still had to pay an additional $130 million out of pocket. The $57 million they paid (item #56 on the financial report) was the last remaining balance on the $130 million they owed out of pocket (the actual donations by the alumni).
If you are obligated to pay 20% of the remodel costs out of pocket at the end of the remodel, you can't just make the annual mortgage payment, decide not to pay the 20% of the remodel costs you were obligated to pay out of pocket, and then claim you have the 20% left over to spend any way you want. You still owe the 20% you promised to pay out of pocket.
The $57 million "profit" isn't free cash flow. It was net of operating costs, not net of operating expenses and capital expenditures. It was a capita expenditure, contractually obligated to the construction company when the project was started, to be paid at completion of the project. a g g y is claiming they didn't have to pay what they promised to pay and can instead spend it on bloated coaching salaries, when in reality they paid it as obligated. You can't spend the same $57 million twice - once on the remodel, and once however you like.
That is my problem.
Lppk, I'm an ol' Southern woman and we don't our special needs children under the porch anymore but the shag really needs to weigh how badly Randy's becoming the face of sip fans.
If they are okay with being a laughing stock with him as the face of their fanbase, then well done.
Same fanbase that pays Ketchum enough to to spend $1,000 at pluckers per year isn't going to have any problem with this guy. They need their smug tanks refilled on a daily basis now after the last 7 years and Randy provides that for them free of charge
AgStuckinLBK said:aggiehawg said:Wut?? Not an accountant but that was a lot of jibberish with "accounting words" thrown in.realestateguru said:
I just don't have the life force.....Quote:
The formula is: net operating profit=gross revenue=operating expenses. Which, for a g g y was $57 million
From net operating profit, they then had to pay the outstanding invoice for capital expenditures. Which, for a g g y, was $57 million (item #56 in the annual financial report).
After paying operating expenses and capital expenditures, what was left would be free cash flow, which they could use as they pleased, if there was any left, which there wasn't.
The $26 million "debt service" was interest and principal on the $350 million bond issuance. In addition to the $350 million, they still had to pay an additional $130 million out of pocket. The $57 million they paid (item #56 on the financial report) was the last remaining balance on the $130 million they owed out of pocket (the actual donations by the alumni).
If you are obligated to pay 20% of the remodel costs out of pocket at the end of the remodel, you can't just make the annual mortgage payment, decide not to pay the 20% of the remodel costs you were obligated to pay out of pocket, and then claim you have the 20% left over to spend any way you want. You still owe the 20% you promised to pay out of pocket.
The $57 million "profit" isn't free cash flow. It was net of operating costs, not net of operating expenses and capital expenditures. It was a capita expenditure, contractually obligated to the construction company when the project was started, to be paid at completion of the project. a g g y is claiming they didn't have to pay what they promised to pay and can instead spend it on bloated coaching salaries, when in reality they paid it as obligated. You can't spend the same $57 million twice - once on the remodel, and once however you like.
That is my problem.
Lppk, I'm an ol' Southern woman and we don't our special needs children under the porch anymore but the shag really needs to weigh how badly Randy's becoming the face of sip fans.
If they are okay with being a laughing stock with him as the face of their fanbase, then well done.
Same fanbase that pays Ketchum enough to to spend $1,000 at pluckers per MONTH isn't going to have any problem with this guy. They need their smug tanks refilled on a daily basis now after the last 7 years and Randy provides that for them free of charge
FIFY
Randy's gobbledegook accounting analysis is music to the ears of the tardhorn fan base.
Once again Charles you are wrong.
Quote:
If Jimbo Fisher wanted it changed so there would be black, female cheerleaders at TAMU, would the alumni make the change? Nope. Why not? Because "things like that aren't done at A&M."
Another hilarious comment from Randy dork. He writes on the shag:
Did he go down to the Editor of the Tribune (supported by sips and A&M) offices? No. Did he call? No. Did he email? No. How did he converse with the editor regarding the baddd Aggies? He left a comment on the article to get back with him on the correction!! "They aren't happy? Haha!They don't know or care who you are!Quote:
Evidently I am not a popular person within the editorial offices at The Texas Tribune at the moment.
I went to the editor and pointed out the $57 million in TAMU athletics "profit" they claimed yesterday that was the basis of TAMU's ability to spend so lavishly on coaching salaries was, in fact, the one-time proceeds of the Kyle Field Capital Gift campaign and, due to tax considerations, could not be spent on discretionary items such as coaches salaries. Legally, they could no more misdirect that $57 million to Jimbo Fisher's pocket than they could misdirect the $25 million in hotel tax revenue they are being "gifted" to offset the cost of the stadium.
TAMU is a financial donor to The Texas Tribune. I have no doubt John Sharp would go nuts if the editor of The Tribune corrected that article. I am not surprised in the least that the author or the article, a TAMU alum, failed to even allude to the eight-figure, interest-free debt the athletics department has owed the academic side since 2006. That little accounting tidbit was entirely ignored.
We shall see whether The Texas Tribune cares to get the story correct. They aren't happy that I am pointing out the blatant bias in their reporting.
Once again Charles Satterfield you prove what a lunatic you are. These new Jimbo revelations have sent you into a manic attack. Get help!!!!!Quote:
Matt, the $57 million you claim as "profit" can be found on the TAMU Jan 2017 NCAA financial report taken from your "Ballpark Figures" story. Here is your link to that report. https://s3.amazonaws.com/raw.texastribune.org/college_sports/2015-2016/ncaa-texas-am-2015-2016.pdf Notice item #56 is "Athletics Related Capital Expenditures." That is the Kyle Field payment. The amount? $57,073,263. So the entire premise of your story is wrong. TAMU athletics generated ZERO free cash flow last year. Every dime of income was either consumed by operating expenses or capital expenditures. I look forward to your correction.
Don't you just love how he complains that the author of the article is an Aggie. You don't think that he would think a journalist would be biased in favor of their alma mater. I know a tu journalist would never put a longhorn slant on an article.
Assuming not him? This would be a case of the internet persona hitting a little too close.
https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/SexOffenderRegistry/Search/Rapsheet?Sid=08881987
https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/SexOffenderRegistry/Search/Rapsheet?Sid=08881987
Not him. Unfortunately same name.
Charles M. Satterfield is not this guy. Randie has not been convicted yet.CW Griswold said:
Assuming not him? This would be a case of the internet persona hitting a little too close.
https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/SexOffenderRegistry/Search/Rapsheet?Sid=08881987
I really hope Duke is just a huge troll by Jorts.
Why this knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, pencil-dicked moron is obsessed with non-news like this is stupefying. Hole. E. Sheet.Quote:
Evidently I am not a popular person within the editorial offices at The Texas Tribune at the moment.
I went to the editor and pointed out the $57 million in TAMU athletics "profit" they claimed yesterday that was the basis of TAMU's ability to spend so lavishly on coaching salaries was, in fact, the one-time proceeds of the Kyle Field Capital Gift campaign and, due to tax considerations, could not be spent on discretionary items such as coaches salaries. Legally, they could no more misdirect that $57 million to Jimbo Fisher's pocket than they could misdirect the $25 million in hotel tax revenue they are being "gifted" to offset the cost of the stadium.
TAMU is a financial donor to The Texas Tribune. I have no doubt John Sharp would go nuts if the editor of The Tribune corrected that article. I am not surprised in the least that the author or the article, a TAMU alum, failed to even allude to the eight-figure, interest-free debt the athletics department has owed the academic side since 2006. That little accounting tidbit was entirely ignored.
We shall see whether The Texas Tribune cares to get the story correct. They aren't happy that I am pointing out the blatant bias in their reporting.
I read that article this morning and figured he would be around at some point to defend the e-honor of his university.Quote:
Evidently I am not a popular person within the editorial offices at The Texas Tribune at the moment.
It didn't take long. I didn't bother reading the 94 comments till just now because with the tribune it's going to be the same predictable clucking with every Aggie related article.
What I did notice though was this little mouse that roared typed his same comment twice. Twice. Still, no one noticed or replied. I'm sure the tribune is shaking in their boots. The attention ***** is desperate.
One of these days chucky might learn about how college finances work, but I doubt it.
Hi Randy, let's make a deal.
If you can find two legislators to begin the process of passing a Constitutional amendment to end Texas A&M's status as a branch of The University of Texas, segregate the financial assets of the PUF, and leave A&M to our fate by May 31st, 2018, then TexAgs will use our collective power to insure the passage of this amendment.
If you fail, then you agree to let OR set you up for a six month stay at a resort/spa of our choosing where you will get your own room, three meals a day, activities and take little pills from paper shot glasses. If at that end of the six months, the Director of the Resort (abbreviated Dr.) request that you stay a bit longer, then OR will gladly sign the paperwork. Yes, it's a big commitment on our part but I think we can make it work.
It's a fair deal, what say you Randy?
If you can find two legislators to begin the process of passing a Constitutional amendment to end Texas A&M's status as a branch of The University of Texas, segregate the financial assets of the PUF, and leave A&M to our fate by May 31st, 2018, then TexAgs will use our collective power to insure the passage of this amendment.
If you fail, then you agree to let OR set you up for a six month stay at a resort/spa of our choosing where you will get your own room, three meals a day, activities and take little pills from paper shot glasses. If at that end of the six months, the Director of the Resort (abbreviated Dr.) request that you stay a bit longer, then OR will gladly sign the paperwork. Yes, it's a big commitment on our part but I think we can make it work.
It's a fair deal, what say you Randy?
Is this like there could not have been trench warfare? Charles, why do you focus on the most inconsequential details? How do you know that the University academic side has not voided what you are calling a "loan?"
Quote:
They also claim the athletics department isn't subsidized by the academic side, but as long as the athletics is still holding the eight-figure, interest free "loan" the academic side gave it back in 2006, they are being subsidized by the academic side.
**** is motivated by how they are viewed by others. Their ethics are as solid as the wind.
Umm, I'm pretty sure we paid back that loan when ol' Dollar Bill was still AD.
Quote:
**** is motivated by how they are viewed by others.
Holy **** the massive irony of this statement from a sip must have flown right over randals small cranium. He truly is a dense fool.
Dollar Bill actually set up a payment plan, the loan was being paid off over 30 years like a mortgage.realestateguru said:
Is this like there could not have been trench warfare? Charles, why do you focus on the most inconsequential details? How do you know that the University academic side has not voided what you are calling a "loan?"Quote:
They also claim the athletics department isn't subsidized by the academic side, but as long as the athletics is still holding the eight-figure, interest free "loan" the academic side gave it back in 2006, they are being subsidized by the academic side.
**** is motivated by how they are viewed by others. Their ethics are as solid as the wind.
It's funny that Charles wants to focus so hard on A&M's finances, probably because he doesn't want to look into what is going on at texas. The 'sips outspend every program in the nation, the closest being Ohio State who spends $5 million less. The problem is, Ohio State has 19 more scholarship teams than texas does. texas' athletic department is THE model for financial inefficiency, which is probably why Satterfield is so obsessed with the minutiae in A&M's athletic department.
The Reverse Apache Master
Joined:
Sep 10, 2010
Posts:
1,604
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Therein lies the end benefit of the exploding A&M student population. Rapidly increasing numbers of students, = rapidly increasing numbers of graduates, = rapidly increasing numbers of A&M voters, = rapidly increasing numbers of elected Former Students in state govt. It will not be done overnight, but in the long run, the evolutionary process will eventually result in a large number of very powerful Former Students in powerful government positions. In my eyes, our future is increasingly positive.MooreTrucker said:
And that's why nobody but this idiot will even broach the subject, much less actively bring it up to the Legislature.
The next step for the PUF will not be to cut A&M out and give it all to tu. The next step will be to take it all back and redistribute it among all the state schools.
Wow, 70 pages of beatdown.
Satterfield has probably worn out every whip and pair of leather panties he bought (or was gifted)....in August.
Charlie...my lawyer says you're arguably a public figure, now! DOUBLE DOWN. Please.
Public Figure. I defer to the Grande Dame, now.
Satterfield has probably worn out every whip and pair of leather panties he bought (or was gifted)....in August.
Charlie...my lawyer says you're arguably a public figure, now! DOUBLE DOWN. Please.
Public Figure. I defer to the Grande Dame, now.
Meh. He won't be a "public figure" until he goes postal and kills a bunch of people. Do hope the university police have his current picture and have alerted personnel with a BOLO, however, when he comes on campus.88jrt06 said:
Wow, 70 pages of beatdown.
Satterfield has probably worn out every whip and pair of leather panties he bought (or was gifted)....in August.
Charlie...my lawyer says you're arguably a public figure, now! DOUBLE DOWN. Please.
Public Figure. I defer to the Grande Dame, now.
Dude is nuts. And when he goes off it will be in College Station, not Austin.
aggiehawg said:
How the hell did they ever trademark "Hook 'Em Horns" by Randy's standards?
SO TRUE. We need to Buzbee on this.
Quote:
Quote:
How the $#@! is that in any way responsive to my halfway decent and well-played joke???
You know everything is not an anecdote. You have to discriminate. You choose things that are funny or mildly amusing or interesting. You're a miracle! Your stories have NONE of that. They're not even amusing ACCIDENTALLY! "Honey, I'd like you to meet Randolph Duke, he's got some amusing **** anecodotes for you. Oh and here's a gun so you can blow your brains out. You'll thank me for it." I could tolerate any insurance seminar. For days I could sit there and listen to them go on and on with a big smile on my face. They'd say, "How can you stand it?" I'd say, "'Cause I've read Randolph Duke's posts. I can take ANYTHING." You know what they'd say? They'd say, "I know what you mean. The **** history guy. Woah." It's like going on a date with a Chatty Cathy doll. I expect you have a little string on your chest, you know, that I pull out and have to snap back. Except I wouldn't pull it out and snap it back - you would. Agh! Agh! Agh! Agh! And by the way, you know, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea - have a POINT. It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener!
from the Shag
Riding Pony Upon My Boat
Joined:
Sep 2, 2006
Posts:
1,102
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That last screw that was barely hanging on finally came loose. Heaven help us!
Oscar Diggs said:
Hi Randy, let's make a deal.
If you can find two legislators to begin the process of passing a Constitutional amendment to end Texas A&M's status as a branch of The University of Texas, segregate the financial assets of the PUF, and leave A&M to our fate by May 31st, 2018, then TexAgs will use our collective power to insure the passage of this amendment.
If you fail, then you agree to let OR set you up for a six month stay at a resort/spa of our choosing where you will get your own room, three meals a day, activities and take little pills from paper shot glasses. If at that end of the six months, the Director of the Resort (abbreviated Dr.) request that you stay a bit longer, then OR will gladly sign the paperwork. Yes, it's a big commitment on our part but I think we can make it work.
It's a fair deal, what say you Randy?
Overruled. Once he loses, we activate Anthony Hopkins and fava beans, skip all that lib $$$ intervention.
Every time i open this thread i always hope I'm about to read how randy has turned his head into a canoe.
I think LEOs will ultimately do that, I am just hoping it is not in Aggieland as Ms. Hawg (and I ) have predicted several times. Hell, if he would do it himself and not take anyone else with him, I would start a Gofundme page for funeral expenses.Irish_Man said:
Every time i open this thread i always hope I'm about to read how randy has turned his head into a canoe.
I could probably fund the entire funeral by charging Ags and lots of Shag members $5 a pop to whiz on his grave!