Quote:

---

You can also spare me on lectures over approval of contracts.

---

You can spare all of us by giving up.

goodAg80 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can also spare me on lectures over approval of contracts.

---

You can spare all of us by giving up.

---

He can't! Asperger's a beotch!

You sure are dense. I showed you how the royalty collections are spread out among separate subsidiaries, as well as reported differently. Yet with absolutely no proof, you are saying those subsidiaries are rolling revenues back through the parent company then cutting one check to UT's athletics department, who is counting that again as revenue then disbursing payments to other schools after getting a cut. Fantasy land. Cool story, bro.

etexorange said:

---

You sure are dense. I showed you how the royalty collections are spread out among separate subsidiaries, as well as reported differently. Yet with absolutely no proof, you are saying those subsidiaries are rolling revenues back through the parent company then cutting one check to UT's athletics department, who is counting that again as revenue then disbursing payments to other schools after getting a cut. Fantasy land. Cool story, bro.

---

Congratulations! You finally get it.

Yes, of course, what $180 million enterprise wouldn't want to pad their balance sheets on the backs of licensed merchandise juggernauts like the UTSA Road Runners and the UTEP Miners. Gold, Jerry!

etexorange said:

---

Yes, of course, what $180 million enterprise wouldn't want to pad their balance sheets on the backs of licensed merchandise juggernauts like the UTSA Road Runners and the UTEP Miners. Gold, Jerry!

---

Only one that likes to claim they have more money than the Vatican. You fit the stereotype so well Charles!

Your "proof" is nearly as thin as Rocco's pencil peter.

etexorange said:

---

Yes, of course, what $180 million enterprise wouldn't want to pad their balance sheets on the backs of licensed merchandise juggernauts like the UTSA Road Runners and the UTEP Miners. Gold, Jerry!

---

I think the system schools are irrelevant. I think the interesting point is that licensing and apparel revenue for UT-Austin runs through athletics (most likely as revenue) and then is paid to the system / UT general fund as an expense. It would take a more thorough audit to prove it out. The expense side of the equation is so out of whack for UT compared to other schools that I believe there are a lot of these types of transactions. The ticket revenue not attributable to a single team is one of the more interesting data points I've seen in one of these reports... I've looked at these for a few schools in the past, but this is the first time I've looked at it for the horns.

What's the conclusion? It doesn't really matter how they keep their books for athletics, but sips swinging around their ***** over revenue year after year is kind of hilarious. But, what do I know? I'm just some farmer who went to a university to help prepare me for a career instead of going to a university to hone my "critical thinking skills".

etexorange said:

---

You sure are dense. I showed you how the royalty collections are spread out among separate subsidiaries, as well as reported differently. Yet with absolutely no proof, you are saying those subsidiaries are rolling revenues back through the parent company then cutting one check to UT's athletics department, who is counting that again as revenue then disbursing payments to other schools after getting a cut. Fantasy land. Cool story, bro.

---

I think you are missing the point. I don't really care how Lierfield handles their bookkeeping. It doesn't really matter if the learfield subsidiaries roll up to the parent company and write one big check or each subsidiary writes its own check to Texas Athletics. I was simply referring to lierfield as singular because it is a bit of a pain to list off every single subsidiary. But, again, not the point. Why does Texas athletics manage the band licensing for the whole UT system and how the revenue is funneled and distributed?

Fact: Texas Athletics manages the licesing for the whole UT system.

Managing the licensing involves more than just negotiating contracts every few years.

Questions: if the licensing was managed at the system level, would you expect a single point of contact between the UT system and Lierfield et al? Why would you not expect the money to be remitted to the system and then dolled out to the schools? If it would work that way at the system level, why would it work any differently with the AD managing the deals.

Oh, an a simple accounting lesson. Company A sells item 1 for $x and books that $x as revenue. Company A had purchased item 1 from Company B for $y ($y < $x, company A profit =$x-$y). Company B books $y as revenue. Company B had purchased component 2 and 3 from companies C and D and assembled components 2 and 3 to make item 1. Company b purchased component 2 for $z and component 3 for $zz. Company C books $z as revenue and company D books $zz as revenue.

Flexbone said:

---

etexorange said:

---

Your "proof" is nearly as thin as Rocco's pencil peter.

---

Once again: you actually believe that Texas makes twice as much as Texas A&M in football. You live in ****ing fantasy land.

---

This is what I don't get. What can you point to that suggests this to be accurate? And I'm not talking about reported numbers. I could say we make twice as much money on football as Texas tech, given our higher tv payout, stadium size, ticket prices, etc. There is actually evidence to suggest that, but I doubt that's the case.

Why does some sip care about this matter so much as to post dozens of posts on a former rivals site? It's unhinged behavior.

ham98 said:

---

Why does some sip care about this matter so much as to post dozens of posts on a former rivals site? It's unhinged behavior.

---

Because his small brain can't comprehend Texas A&M being big brother, so he explains it away with his tin foil math.

Quote:

---

Why does Texas athletics manage the band licensing for the whole UT system and how the revenue is funneled and distributed?

---

They don't. The oversee Learfield's subsidiaries (Maverick Properties, Roadrunner Properties, etc.) which manage the brand licensing. Those Properties/subsidiaries are also considered the rights-holder on behalf of the Board of Regents.

Notice how the contract is between UT San Antonio and Learfield? No middle-man.

Roadrunner Properties, Maverick Properties, etc. pay the schools directly. UT Arlington and UT San Antonio, etc.'s, trademark revenue is not funneled through UT Austin or UT-Austin Athletics.

Quote:

---

Contract (funds coming in) - U.T. San Antonio: Roadrunner Sports Properties, LLC, subsidiary of Learfield Communications, Inc., to license U.T. San Antonio's trademarks for use in athletic sponsorships, broadcasting, and related media services in exchange for royalties

Agency: Roadrunner Sports Properties, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Learfield Communications, Inc. (Learfield)

Funds: $12,225,000 guaranteed royalty for the entire term, plus the potential for additional revenue to U. T. San Antonio related to contract incentives

Period: September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2023

Description: Agreement to license U. T. San Antonio trademarks and other rights to Learfield in exchange for royalties benefiting U. T. San Antonio's Athletics Department, arising out of
sponsorships, broadcasting, and related media services.

---

Good enough for me

etexorange said:

---

Quote:

---

Why does Texas athletics manage the band licensing for the whole UT system and how the revenue is funneled and distributed?

---

They don't. The oversee Learfield's subsidiaries (Maverick Properties, Roadrunner Properties, etc.) which manage the brand licensing. Those Properties/subsidiaries are also considered the rights-holder on behalf of the Board of Regents.

Notice how the contract is between UT San Antonio and Learfield? No middle-man.

Roadrunner Properties, Maverick Properties, etc. pay the schools directly. UT Arlington and UT San Antonio, etc.'s, trademark revenue is not funneled through UT Austin or UT-Austin Athletics.

Quote:

---

Contract (funds coming in) - U.T. San Antonio: Roadrunner Sports Properties, LLC, subsidiary of Learfield Communications, Inc., to license U.T. San Antonio's trademarks for use in athletic sponsorships, broadcasting, and related media services in exchange for royalties

Agency: Roadrunner Sports Properties, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Learfield Communications, Inc. (Learfield)

Funds: $12,225,000 guaranteed royalty for the entire term, plus the potential for additional revenue to U. T. San Antonio related to contract incentives

Period: September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2023

Description: Agreement to license U. T. San Antonio trademarks and other rights to Learfield in exchange for royalties benefiting U. T. San Antonio's Athletics Department, arising out of
sponsorships, broadcasting, and related media services.

---

Good enough for me

---

Back to denying black and white statements...

Quote:

---

The University of Texas at Austin is responsible for oversight of trademark licensing for all UT System components, including UT-San Antonio, UT-Arlington and UT-El Paso. Management of trademark licensing was transferred to Texas Athletics in the 2007-08 fiscal year.

---

Texas Athletics manages the trademark licensing. This is done through contracts with Learfield (and it's subsidiaries) and 289C (which is a Dallas Cowboys marketing subsidiary, btw).

But, back to the point. The summary of the contract states the money goes to UTSA Athletics. And you claim that means there is no middle man, but it really doesn't say anything about how the money gets from Learfield/Roadrunner to UTSA Athletics

Let me give you another example. From reading the press releases and summaries of the LHN contract, do you recall any mention of a middle man? Would you be surprised to learn that ESPN does not actually pay UT, except for whatever they pay to rent a building? Rather, the contract specifically states that ESPN pays IMG. And then IMG pays UT (after taking their cut out). Yet, I don't recall all those announcements saying ESPN was paying IMG $15mil/yr, nope they said UT was getting $15 mil/yr (which is an average over those 20 years and doesn't account for IMG's cut.)

etexorange said:

---

Quote:

---

Why does Texas athletics manage the band licensing for the whole UT system and how the revenue is funneled and distributed?

---

They don't. The oversee Learfield's subsidiaries (Maverick Properties, Roadrunner Properties, etc.) which manage the brand licensing. Those Properties/subsidiaries are also considered the rights-holder on behalf of the Board of Regents.

Notice how the contract is between UT San Antonio and Learfield? No middle-man.

Roadrunner Properties, Maverick Properties, etc. pay the schools directly. UT Arlington and UT San Antonio, etc.'s, trademark revenue is not funneled through UT Austin or UT-Austin Athletics.

Quote:

---

Contract (funds coming in) - U.T. San Antonio: Roadrunner Sports Properties, LLC, subsidiary of Learfield Communications, Inc., to license U.T. San Antonio's trademarks for use in athletic sponsorships, broadcasting, and related media services in exchange for royalties

Agency: Roadrunner Sports Properties, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Learfield Communications, Inc. (Learfield)

Funds: $12,225,000 guaranteed royalty for the entire term, plus the potential for additional revenue to U. T. San Antonio related to contract incentives

Period: September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2023

Description: Agreement to license U. T. San Antonio trademarks and other rights to Learfield in exchange for royalties benefiting U. T. San Antonio's Athletics Department, arising out of
sponsorships, broadcasting, and related media services.

---

Good enough for me

---

You are ****ing ridiculous. WHO GIVES A *****

Instead of worrying about how to account for the licensing revenue from UT Arlington, you would think that folks in Austin would be spending time worrying about how to beat UTA on the basketball court? But no, the sips are busy trying to defend their revenue championship.

The University of Texas at Austin. Doing less with more since 1883.

StephenvilleAg77 said:

---

lil brother is still here?

---

He wants to stop arguing, but his Aspergers won't let him.

I repeat. It's unhinged behavior to care this much about this topic on another schools fan website.

Tell us more etex

It is almost like are accountants are rednecks

Any new info we can add to this thread?

aggball2010 said:

---

Any new info we can add to this thread?

---

Sure. That check we cashed from the conference isn't real money, because we didn't amortize our start-up expenses.