OU President Gallogly

[BoulderSooner]

^

OU will be paying rent and not keeping concession revenue.

Yes, they will get to use a new arena but it won't be close to free.

Actually this all would depend on the lease. Likley OU will pay rent and will receive a good portion of the concession revenue add revenue. A portion of the naming rights a portion of all the ticket sales from the suites club seating for non OU events And of course ou will get the donations for premium seating areas

And if OU wants it will get to prebuy some parking and then resell it at a higher rate


These are all standard tenet lease options. Including for the thunder with Okc

[d-usa]

https://newsok.com/article/5555405/o...hletic-revenue

The Sooners earned $150,373,216 in total revenue that year, up from $134,269,349 the previous year. OU's expenses were $127.4 million.

The biggest boost to the revenue was a large jump in contributions. From 2015 to 2016, OU gained $14.5 million in contributions, bringing the 2016 total to $46.6 million.

Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

[jedicurt]

https://newsok.com/article/5555405/o...hletic-revenue

Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

and a large chunk of those contributions are those required for season seats. so if a minimum donation is required for a season seat... then it is still technically revenue generated for that seat. and while labeled as a "Contribution" it really isn't. again, just like how PSL's are done to "make season tickets cheaper" they really aren't any cheaper.. you are still paying for it, just labeled differently on the bill.

https://newsok.com/article/5465828/o...icket-holders?

Another item is the required donation related to Advertising in the program as well as at the stadiums.. These "contributions" are add-on's to other revenue streams, not truly contributions...

[BoulderSooner]

https://newsok.com/article/5555405/o...hletic-revenue


Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

Or they would have spent less money. And as has been said they know how much money they have coming in donations because most of them are related to buying tickets

[jedicurt]

[[/url]Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

I think the minimum donation in the upper deck is $100 per seat. I know that some of them get into the thousands. so lets go with a very conservative estimate and say the average is $250 per seat. the stadium sits 86,000. so lets go another conservative number and say only 50,000 of the seats are season ticket holders. that alone is $12.5 Million in "Contributions" that are actually season seat ticket revenue. so we went very conservative on the numbers... and that loss is down to $7.5 Million. and that doesn't include the required advertising donations as well.

[Rover]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this new stadium isn't replacing Lloyd Noble, right? OU athletics will just use it for some events and continue to use Lloyd Noble for events too. Besides, OU has recently pumped a lot of money into practice facilities connected to Lloyd Noble.

Personally, I think OU should build an on-campus arena next to the track and across the street from the football stadium.

Or, my urbanist solution for the parking lot that is Lloyd Noble is to do a public-private partnership to surround Lloyd Noble with mixed use student housing, restaurants, and more. The development would push out to the edges of the lot, thus leaving intimate outdoor spaces between Lloyd Noble and the new development. A parking garage or two could be either integrated or put nearby to address parking. That's my dream to fix that area.

Soon as OU has 60,000 students that will be great.

[Jersey Boss]

Their stadium is outdated. To stay competitive they must do something. In you guys’ scenario they can’t win. If they stay where they are and continue to struggle and lose patrons and ticket revenue you will be critical. If they spend more money on the outdated arena or build a new one themselves, you will be critical. If they go forward with the new arena arrangement, you will be critical. Hmmmm.

You mean arena and not stadium, correct? I agree with you whole heartedly that a new arena is overdue. I also believe that the new arena should be orientated as basketball specific and not mult use, such as GIA in Stillwater.

[Rover]

You mean arena and not stadium, correct? I agree with you whole heartedly that a new arena is overdue. I also believe that the new arena should be orientated as basketball specific and not mult use, such as GIA in Stillwater.

Yes...arena. Stadium is great...what 100s of millions of dollars will do, with more on the way.

[Jersey Boss]

and a large chunk of those contributions are those required for season seats. so if a minimum donation is required for a season seat... then it is still technically revenue generated for that seat. and while labeled as a "Contribution" it really isn't. again, just like how PSL's are done to "make season tickets cheaper" they really aren't any cheaper.. you are still paying for it, just labeled differently on the bill.

https://newsok.com/article/5465828/o...icket-holders?

Another item is the required donation related to Advertising in the program as well as at the stadiums.. These "contributions" are add-on's to other revenue streams, not truly contributions...

An unknown in this equation is how the rewriting of the tax code impacts donations. As it stands for taxes in year 2017 contributions above the actual ticket price were deductible. It is my understanding that this will no longer be the case.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm.../#3ef3e354abea

[jedicurt]

An unknown in this equation is how the rewriting of the tax code impacts donations. As it stands for taxes in year 2017 contributions above the actual ticket price were deductible. It is my understanding that this will no longer be the case.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm.../#3ef3e354abea

and even depending upon how they used the tickets... a partial price of the ticket might also have been deductible (up to 33% I believe). and that is now gone as well.

It really is a big question mark... because schools probably won't stop the practice. the question is will as many people be willing to pay the donation piece if it is no longer tax deductible. My honest thought is that very few are going to actually drop the tickets just because of that change. it may mean that corporations my not purchase as many seats, and maybe someone who has 5 or 6 seats may drop to 4... but at OU there is a waiting line still for tickets, so people will buy them even if the donation isn't tax deductible. If I had to predict, I think you will see some small businesses drop theirs, and larger corporations may cut back on the number they buy... but that just means that individual families will pick them up. as long as the program is rolling like it has, I don't see attendance dropping because the donation is no longer tax deductible.

[Jersey Boss]

I hope you are right about families picking up any surplus. I don't know about there being a waiting line as the Athletic Office has basic tickets starting at 485 per. There is also a seating chart showing plenty of tickets available for season purchase. Keep in mind that Oklahoma is a low cost of living/low wage state and comparatively speaking OU charges some of the highest prices for NCAA football. IMHO, the jury is out on the ramifications of the tax code changes.

[Rover]

I hope you are right about families picking up any surplus. I don't know about there being a waiting line as the Athletic Office has basic tickets starting at 485 per. There is also a seating chart showing plenty of tickets available for season purchase. Keep in mind that Oklahoma is a low cost of living/low wage state and comparatively speaking OU charges some of the highest prices for NCAA football. IMHO, the jury is out on the ramifications of the tax code changes.

The NBA found out that while it is a low income state it had a HIGH level of discretionary money because of low cost of living. People love their sports and love their OU. They will keep coming to the games. The slowdown and future threat is from students.

[OKCretro]

Wouldn't be surprised to see OU have beer to the common folk next year at football and basketball. UT made over 1 million in selling beer last year. With Boren now gone, i see this happening very quickly.

[HangryHippo]

Wouldn't be surprised to see OU have beer to the common folk next year at football and basketball. UT made over 1 million in selling beer last year. With Boren now gone, i see this happening very quickly.

Joe Castiglione was recently asked about beer sales and said he did not see it happening outside of the premium areas. He, of course, could be lying/unwilling to divulge future plans, but based on that response, it probably won't be as quickly as some hope.

[OKCretro]

Joe Castiglione was recently asked about beer sales and said he did not see it happening outside of the premium areas. He, of course, could be lying/unwilling to divulge future plans, but based on that response, it probably won't be as quickly as some hope.

you could be right. It could be one of the major selling points for the new end zone 'club seats'. Not sure if they have sold those out yet. Maybe once all of those are sold out in 2-3 year commitments, then they will start selling beer to everyone else.

[hoya]

https://newsok.com/article/5555405/o...hletic-revenue

Without the contributions the program would have lost ~$20 million.

So the hell what? They have high levels of contribution every year. It’s a normal source of revenue for OU. And they adjust how much they spend based on how high the contributions are.

[okatty]

Article in OU Daily...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/james-ga...34467edba.html

[Midtowner]

I wonder how countries that focus on academics and don’t have athletics mixed into their higher education while serving as a “free” developmental league for professional sports are able to hang on.

Those countries probably tend to fully fund higher ed instead of relying on wealthy donors to subsidize the school in exchange for great seats to games and public honors showered upon them during athletic events.

[bombermwc]

Guys, OU has nothing to do with this arena project. This isn't at all to move Lloyd Noble events there. This is for the city of NORMAN. It's not unusual for burbs to have their own small arenas. Hell, even in Tulsa there's the Spirit Arena in Bixby. It didn't end up working out well for them there, but we also have the casino arenas around town too. Remember, the OSSAA state wrestling tournament moved to the Grand Casino arena a few years ago....i dont know if it was there more than one year or not, didnt pay attention.

Rosemont, IL is good example too. It's a way for smaller market events to come to your town or even a very small minor league something. OU Hockey already plays at the Blazer's Center on 240/35. And they far from fill the place that only holds a few hundred folks. So its not like they're gonna pay for a 5k seat place. But they could have large event scale meetings there as they have plenty of hotel capacity near the lot and it continues to expand. It's all just part of Norman's (not OU) masterplan vision for the north portion of the development. The southern half is getting full but there's not enough demand to continue that level of retail density, hence the corporate/hotel/residential/etc. Even the airport side lots haven't come to fruition yet.

[David]

Article in OU Daily...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/james-ga...34467edba.html

I may be pessimistic, but to me that reads like he's going to be a disaster for OU.

[Pete]

Article in OU Daily...

http://www.oudaily.com/news/james-ga...34467edba.html

It's hard to read that and not view it as him dogging out Boren in many ways.

I still wonder how the regents regarded Boren towards the end of his tenure; perhaps they felt largely the same way and specifically sought someone with a strong business background to correct what they perceived as major issues.

It just all seems strange to me. Boren served that university for a long time and few can challenge his love and dedication for the school. It all seems a bit ham-fisted to talk about Boren in this way but on the other hand it may be needed in order for Gallogly to make the change he believes is now necessary.

[king183]

I may be pessimistic, but to me that reads like he's going to be a disaster for OU.

Interesting. I read it the opposite way and it made me optimistic. It is pretty well known in Norman that Boren would fill jobs with unqualified yes men who wouldn't challenge him. Jonathon Nichols is a great example, and I could point out at least three others who were fired and should have never held the job they had. Some of them rarely ever worked a full week and were getting paid very well. Getting rid of them is a good sign, in my opinion.

Also a good sign in my opinion is his refusal to gloss over intentionally opaque financial information that no one understood.

[Pete]

At the time it was announced, I thought it was very interesting that Boren was completely excluded from the search for a new president.

Now, I'm starting to think all this is inter-related in that the regents were anxious to move forward with new leadership and while Boren had done much for the university, it was time to bring someone with a completely different approach.

[HangryHippo]

I do think Boren was guilty of being too much of a politician at times as OU President. But Gallogly sounds like he may go too far the other way. I hope he's not a disaster for OU, but I'm not optimistic about his tenure at all.

[Pete]

I do think Boren was guilty of being too much of a politician at times as OU President. But Gallogly sounds like he may go too far the other way. I hope he's not a disaster for OU, but I'm not optimistic about his tenure at all.

It's hard to judge any leader until some time passes after their depature.

They control the info and they don't get to these lofty positions without the ability to charm and even manipulate while at the same time having a big microphone and often being the only voice you hear.

So now that Boren is out, a clearer picture will start to take shape. It could very well be that he didn't adapt well to an ever-changing landscape (change is rapid now in almost every aspect business and organizational management) and while maybe he was great for OU for a while, that perhaps he stayed longer than he should have... Which is not an uncommon practice especially by those at the end of their overall career.