Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 2155533, member: 622"] There are several of us locals who love the Orange but did not/could not attend. My dad loved the Orange and I got hooked with the Louie Bouie show in hoops and with football in general. Lacrosse won me over, not there was a real fight for my fandom. This issue is an ongoing issue with Rutgers' AD having been in the red (and I don't mean in uniform). They have been annually short and have borrowed much money. The economics professor has publicly stated the $351.9MM figure but I (nor others on this site to my knowledge) have not taken th trouble to analyze the numbers the professor has used and the reported figures over the years. To add to the problem of the true debt, one must determine what Rutgers is actually required to pay back. My gut says that they will not have to pay back the student fees (or return in kind to the university in some manner), how far back the issue goes (I believe it originates around the time of ACC Raid I, but that is my guess, I cannot prove this and I am too lazy to research it), other sources of funding, etc. My figure is based on the past discussions and is tempered by the professor's number. A year (or two or three) ago, some of us roughly calculated that Rutgers was in the hole to nearly a half billion $, but again, how much must be paid back? Regardless, the prof estimates the $351.9 and they wil be in the red again this year by $30-40MM so the $400MM figure, though ballparked, is not too far off. One smoke screen I have seen repeatedly used by pro-Rutgers AD spending people (writers, university personnel, etc.) is that they will limit discussion to the current year to mask the perpetual shortfall. Another smoke screen is described above by alluding to the projected income (now at $40-50MM several years out) without discounting the amount by today's income or inflating the projected costs against the projected income. As I am not an accountant, I lack the patience to do the math, suffice it to say that if the CPI increases by 1% annually, the projected spending should follow the same increases, at least the two should track closely. By comparing apples (current shortfalls) to oranges (no not the Orange(men)) (tomorrows projections), they mask the true nature of the effect of the excessive borrowing. One should ask whether Rutgers' AD would be able to borrow the same money from a regular bank, if not, then you would know that the borrowing is not a safe investment. By borrowing from the university's bank, they will receive favorable treatment and probably a serious discount and/or outright forgiveness of the debt. But this only accounts for a part of the debt. Additionally, the article points out that they have raised $71MM in commitments but that the goal is $100MM while the first phase of the expansion is $115MM and the loan is $26MM. $71MM and $26MM totals $97MM, still short of the goal by $3MM and by the cost of the first phase by $18MM, without an indication of what the other phases will cost, which amounts to another shortfall of $18MM for 2019 (or whenever the facility is to be completed) on top of the projected revenue shortfalls for that year. Considering the product on the field and the fact that attendance is meh, how long before the NYC located fans of B1G foes realize they do not have to by season tickets to get a seat at the game of their choice? Once this happens, Rutgers' ticket sales revenue will drop. Simply put, way too many numbers floating around and no evidence that they balance out at the end of the day. A CPA could retire off a forensic investigation of the Rutgers AD. P.S. Sorry for getting long winded, but this is a good discussion and you deserve an explanation, of which I did not do justice because there is simply too much more. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?