MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: keefe on March 01, 2013, 02:01:37 PM
-
Pitino:
C7 Deserve the BE name
C7 Deserves the MSG tourney home
C7 should have been fed up and left 3 years ago
C7 is getting a great deal from Fox
Football rules sports
Katz:
Fox Deal is driving this to start '13-14
Fox Insists on Xavier and Butler
Fox Working to get Creighton in this year
Fox wants to add SLU and Gonzaga
GU wants another eastern seaboard program
Fox may want 16 teams over time
C7 won't cut check; Will leave majority of Tourney Units (Tourney Units pay out over 6 years)
Remaining Schools (RS) will need ECU & USNA to come in as full members
UND & Louisville will join ACC this fall
Andrew Brandt (Sports Law at Nova; former GB Packer Exec)
BE Name highly valuable
WSJ puts value in excess of $500MM
Brand Equity is in Fox Deal
C7 will flourish financially
-
No mention of Dayton :D
I would have to believe if Fox wants 16, Fox will get 16 (if not they will get 14 for sure). I am/have always been for Gonzaga if they are willing to make the trips out east/financially can without the help of the other schools in the conference. A Marquette trip out west once a year isn't gonna kill us.
-
No mention of Dayton :D
I would have to believe if Fox wants 16, Fox will get 16 (if not they will get 14 for sure). I am/have always been for Gonzaga if they are willing to make the trips out east/financially can without the help of the other schools in the conference. A Marquette trip out west once a year isn't gonna kill us.
Are you talking for all sports or just for men's basketball?
-
Are you talking for all sports or just for men's basketball?
Fox doesn't give a sh1t about anything but basketball as that is all they will be broadcasting.
-
Are you talking for all sports or just for men's basketball?
Outside of soccer, what olympic sport will have to travel out west on a yearly basis?
Track/XC/Tennis/etc. all compete in national inviationals and only have to compete solely against their conference at their conference meets, which if held in Washington once every blue moon can easliy be budgeted.
-
Outside of soccer, what olympic sport will have to travel out west on a yearly basis?
Track/XC/Tennis/etc. all compete in national inviationals and only have to compete solely against their conference at their conference meets, which if held in Washington once every blue moon can easliy be budgeted.
Men's and women's soccer, women's volleyball, men and women's basketball, men's and women's LAX. It's a fair amount of travel, but again for all schools but Gonzaga, it's not that bad cause each team only does it once. For Gonzaga they would have to do it up to 15 times depending on the schedule/number of away games. Could you imagine having to play Georgetown and then St John's on the road in back to back weekends?
-
The BE brand is worth nowhere near a half a billion dollars. That's just silly.
-
The BE brand is worth nowhere near a half a billion dollars. That's just silly.
based on...?
-
Based on the fact that they couldn't get a decent television contract for its product. A brand is only valuable based on the marginal revenue it produces. You put the same schools, playing the same games in a differently named conference, the product isn't going to be worth $500M less...even over the course of time.
-
The BE brand is worth nowhere near a half a billion dollars. That's just silly.
Brandt's point is that it articulated into a half a billion contract. In that sense he is correct.
I did M&A work for a living...there are many ways to get a fair Market valuation but Brandt did was the easiest from a pragmatic market place standpoint. The BE/C7 have a product. Fox Sports Network just gave them $500MM for the use of it. Guess what? It has a fair market commercial value of $500MM for 10 years. I would have to discount the cash flows but in a liquidity starved market the NPV will likely approximate the $500MM.
An acquisition is a very different animal in which one would ascribe a good will value for the brand name. But that is a very different play and not what Brandt was speaking of when he referenced the WSJ. DO NOT confuse Brand equity with market value with acquisition value.
Tell me, how much M&A work have you done?
-
Brandt's point is that it articulated into a half a billion contract. In that sense he is correct.
I did M&A work for a living...there are many ways to get a valuation but this is the easiest from a marketing standpoint. The BE/C7 have a product. Fox Sports Network just gave them $500MM for the use of it. Guess what? It has a fair market value of $500MM for 10 years.
An acquisition is a very different animal in which one would ascribe a good will value for the brand name. But that is a different play.
Tell me, how much M&A work have you done?
Can you knock it off with the cock measuring competitions around here?
We finally got CBB to ease up a bit and now you're fully-torqued out.
-
Can you knock it off with the cock measuring competitions around here?
We finally got CBB to ease up a bit and now you're fully-torqued out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E1JLR-h_bE
-
Brandt's point is that it articulated into a half a billion contract. In that sense he is correct.
I did M&A work for a living...there are many ways to get a valuation but this is the easiest from a marketing standpoint. The BE/C7 have a product. Fox Sports Network just gave them $500MM for the use of it. Guess what? It has a fair market value of $500MM for 10 years.
An acquisition is a very different animal in which one would ascribe a good will value for the brand name. But that is a different play.
Tell me, how much M&A work have you done?
Ya but Fox paid 500mm for the brand name AND the actual content of basketball games.
Besides, the best measure of something's worth is what someone will pay for it. Didn't we just get it for 60mm or whatever our NCAA units were worth?
I'm only in M&A right now, haven't practiced yet, so maybe you're right...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E1JLR-h_bE
CRANK IT DOWN
-
Fox wants to add SLU and Gonzaga
GU wants another eastern seaboard program
Compromise: SLU and Richmond. No Dayton. Deal!
-
Compromise: SLU and Richmond. No Dayton. Deal!
Tag 'em and bag 'em.
-
Ya but Fox paid 500mm for the brand name AND the actual content of basketball games.
Besides, the best measure of something's worth is what someone will pay for it. Didn't we just get it for 60mm or whatever our NCAA units were worth?
I'm only in M&A right now, haven't practiced yet, so maybe you're right...
He confused fair market commercial value with acquisition value. I don't think the negotiations are complete on the C7's acquisition cost for the name but one mitigant for the remaining members is that Big East is silly in the context of the history and go-forward composition of the league. Therefore, the value to them is degraded though for the C7 members it has significant upside.
An example of this would be a company exiting an industry by selling off a product line to a competitor. A local WI case would be the old American Motors selling the Jeep Brand to Chrysler. Chrysler only wanted the Jeep brand and had no interest in AMC's PPE in places like Kenosha so, not wishing to screw up their Balance Sheet, declined to purchase many of these capital assets. Some of these assets had a much higher book value for AMC but without a product to manufacture, it had a significantly degraded market value. Malaysia's Proton was looking for increased manufacturing capacity and snapped them up for pennies on the dollar.
So, the C7/BE can acquire the BE Brand for its residual value then lever that into $500MM cash, thereby capturing the uptick in valuation. This is why M&A exists - to extract unrealized value from undervalued or underperforming assets.
-
The BE brand is worth nowhere near a half a billion dollars. That's just silly.
I believe you misunderstood some of the terms. Please reference my other posts here on the subject.
-
I believe you misunderstood some of the terms. Please reference my other posts here on the subject.
You're obviously a bright guy and I enjoy your excellent analysis and insights, but you sometimes sound like a former high school football star trying to impress his friends ten years after graduation with all his past success stories.
Let the past go. Enjoy your current life. The past is behind us for a reason.
-
He confused fair market commercial value with acquisition value. I don't think the negotiations are complete on the C7's acquisition cost for the name but one mitigant for the remaining members is that Big East is silly in the context of the history and go-forward composition of the league. Therefore, the value to them is degraded though for the C7 members it has significant upside.
An example of this would be a company exiting an industry by selling off a product line to a competitor. A local WI case would be the old American Motors selling the Jeep Brand to Chrysler. Chrysler only wanted the Jeep brand and had no interest in AMC's PPE in places like Kenosha so, not wishing to screw up their Balance Sheet, declined to purchase many of these capital assets. Some of these assets had a much higher book value for AMC but without a product to manufacture, it had a significantly degraded market value. Malaysia's Proton was looking for increased manufacturing capacity and snapped them up for pennies on the dollar.
So, the C7/BE can acquire the BE Brand for its residual value then lever that into $500MM cash, thereby capturing the uptick in valuation. This is why M&A exists - to extract unrealized value from undervalued or underperforming assets.
He isn't understanding that the Big East's product is more than just the brand name. Fox isn't paying us 500mm so they can show commercials with the words Big East and use the logo. They are paying us to broadcast basketball games. What would Fox have paid us if we didn't have the name Big East? 450mm? 400mm? Whatever the difference, it's a lot closer to 60mm than 500mm?
-
Ugh....
The point is keefe that bringing up the "brand is worth $500M" is irrelevant to a discussion about how much the C7 going to pay for it because it is completely misleading. Let's say that all in, he is correct. You could label the same exact schools playing the same exact number of games the "Metro Conference," and it would be only marginally less valuable - perhaps $495M.
Can you knock it off with the cock measuring competitions around here?
No sh*t. Just because he uses big words and lots of paragraphs, I guess we are supposed to be impressed.
-
You're obviously a bright guy and I enjoy your excellent analysis and insights, but you sometimes sound like a former high school football star trying to impress his friends ten years after graduation with all his past success stories.
Let the past go. Enjoy your current life. The past is behind us for a reason.
the past is behind us for a reason? is it the same reason that the future is in front of us and the present is, well, right now?
-
Ugh....
The point is keefe that bringing up the "brand is worth $500M" is irrelevant to a discussion about how much the C7 going to pay for it because it is completely misleading. Let's say that all in, he is correct. You could label the same exact schools playing the same exact number of games the "Metro Conference," and it would be only marginally less valuable - perhaps $495M.
No sh*t. Just because he uses big words and lots of paragraphs, I guess we are supposed to be impressed.
Please look over what I posted and see that you are mistaken. I never wrote, "brand is worth $500M." Not sure where you got that. I transcribed what was being said in the interviews, Brandt never said the "Brand is worth $500MM" and I did not quote him as saying that. What Brandt said was
1. The Big East name is highly valuable
2. WSJ values the portfolio in excess of $500MM
You either misread or misunderstood what I wrote but you nevertheless jumped all over it, misquoting me as saying that the brand was worth $500. I never said that nor did Andrew Brandt. Clearly you have not done valuation work in an M&A environment. Nothing wrong with that as not everybody wants to do it or has the training to do it. The naivete of your statements makes it clear this is not an area of expertise for you.
What the Brand is worth to the remaining schools is very different than what it is worth to the C7. And that is the job of venture people to identify those opportunities and extract the value from an undervalued or underperforming asset.
You think by screaming longest and loudest when people disagree with you that somehow makes you correct or right. Fact is, you are just a silly bully.
-
You're also ignoring all the money saved by having an established brand and not having to rebrand. No need to create new logos or advertise the name of a new conference. That's a lot of the value of the brand too. And yes the conference would be worth less with out the BE name. There's a reason Fox made it a part of the deal. Keeping the BE name gives the league a ton of credibility that it would not have had with a new name.
-
You're also ignoring all the money saved by having an established brand and not having to rebrand. No need to create new logos or advertise the name of a new conference. That's a lot of the value of the brand too. And yes the conference would be worth less with out the BE name. There's a reason Fox made it a part of the deal. Keeping the BE name gives the league a ton of credibility that it would not have had with a new name.
You obviously missed a separate thread where the discussion was on the power of brands. Our Wizard of South Wayne stated that launching a new brand is "easy, and cheap to do, too."
fact is, creating and successfully launching a new brand is bloody difficult and terribly expensive. At PepsiCo there was a huge uptick in share value just on the strength of our brands. If you looked at our P:E's it was easy to see the equity in our brands and this was critical as a FMCG company. That's why each and every Annual Report always said, "Power Brands" on the cover and featured logos.
If one is interested in how you extract value from a brand some of the best work is done by PepsiCo. There are HBS cases on Gatorade, Cracker Jack, and California Pizza Kitchen. Each was a PepsiCo acquisition and went from being either unloved/mismanaged, dying, or incipient and turned into cash machines. But for every Gatorade there are a dozen Snapples.
-
Ugh....
The point is keefe that bringing up the "brand is worth $500M" is irrelevant to a discussion about how much the C7 going to pay for it because it is completely misleading. Let's say that all in, he is correct. You could label the same exact schools playing the same exact number of games the "Metro Conference," and it would be only marginally less valuable - perhaps $495M.
No sh*t. Just because he uses big words and lots of paragraphs, I guess we are supposed to be impressed.
Keefe, I'm with Sultan on this. Just dial it a back a bit please.
Oh, and eff ND.
-
the past is behind us for a reason? is it the same reason that the future is in front of us and the present is, well, right now?
Yes, it is that simple. Its all about the present. The key is to live in the present and not the past or the future. It is acceptance of the past as being behind us and knowledge that there is a future but one that is not part of our lives now that allows us to live fully in the present. By living in the present we can find our greatest satisfaction from life.
I really wish I had accepted this more when I was younger.
-
Yes, it is that simple. Its all about the present. The key is to live in the present and not the past or the future. It is acceptance of the past as being behind us and knowledge that there is a future but one that is not part of our lives now that allows us to live fully in the present. By living in the present we can find our greatest satisfaction from life.
I really wish I had accepted this more when I was younger.
How very Zen of you. Our thoughts and actions now shape our future in ways we cannot comprehend but through time.
A learned man came to visit the Zen Master wishing to learn about Zen. As they conversed the Zen Master brewed tea. After steeping he served the learned man first. He poured the tea cup full but continued pouring as the tea overflowed. The Learned Man cried out to stop, that no more would go in! The Zen Master replied, "Like this cup, you are full of your own opinions, speculations, and beliefs. How can I show you Zen unless you empty your tea cup?"
-
He confused fair market commercial value with acquisition value. I don't think the negotiations are complete on the C7's acquisition cost for the name but one mitigant for the remaining members is that Big East is silly in the context of the history and go-forward composition of the league. Therefore, the value to them is degraded though for the C7 members it has significant upside.
An example of this would be a company exiting an industry by selling off a product line to a competitor. A local WI case would be the old American Motors selling the Jeep Brand to Chrysler. Chrysler only wanted the Jeep brand and had no interest in AMC's PPE in places like Kenosha so, not wishing to screw up their Balance Sheet, declined to purchase many of these capital assets. Some of these assets had a much higher book value for AMC but without a product to manufacture, it had a significantly degraded market value. Malaysia's Proton was looking for increased manufacturing capacity and snapped them up for pennies on the dollar.
So, the C7/BE can acquire the BE Brand for its residual value then lever that into $500MM cash, thereby capturing the uptick in valuation. This is why M&A exists - to extract unrealized value from undervalued or underperforming assets.
So you're saying that the new league is going to have to sell off DePaul men's basketball program to another party so someone can extract value from it?
Otherwise, DePaul could reduce consumer confusion between the current program and their previous successful one by licensing the Washington Generals name from the Harlem Globetrotters and rebranding themselves as the patsy of the new Big East.
-
So you're saying that the new league is going to have to sell off DePaul men's basketball program to another party so someone can extract value from it?
Otherwise, DePaul could reduce consumer confusion between the current program and their previous successful one by licensing the Washington Generals name from the Harlem Globetrotters and rebranding themselves as the patsy of the new Big East.
If you follow our friend keefe lately...see following link.
http://www.google.com/search?q=g+graphics+bongs&hl=en&client=safari&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qogxUaf7MNCFyQGnu4CIDA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=690&sei=kokxUbmeOqqQyQHczYCACA#biv=i%7C7%3Bd%7CoDFRZsLoMQADvM%3A
All hail 10th floor Schroeder.
-
Please look over what I posted and see that you are mistaken. I never wrote, "brand is worth $500M." Not sure where you got that. I transcribed what was being said in the interviews, Brandt never said the "Brand is worth $500MM" and I did not quote him as saying that. What Brandt said was
1. The Big East name is highly valuable
2. WSJ values the portfolio in excess of $500MM
You either misread or misunderstood what I wrote but you nevertheless jumped all over it, misquoting me as saying that the brand was worth $500. I never said that nor did Andrew Brandt. Clearly you have not done valuation work in an M&A environment. Nothing wrong with that as not everybody wants to do it or has the training to do it. The naivete of your statements makes it clear this is not an area of expertise for you.
What the Brand is worth to the remaining schools is very different than what it is worth to the C7. And that is the job of venture people to identify those opportunities and extract the value from an undervalued or underperforming asset.
You think by screaming longest and loudest when people disagree with you that somehow makes you correct or right. Fact is, you are just a silly bully.
First of all, grow a pair. Seriously, just because I'm not going to stand up to your bullsh*t, that doesn't make me a bully.
Second, this is specifically what you said:
"BE Name highly valuable
WSJ puts value in excess of $500MM"
So all of the sudden you put the word "portfolio" in there. Obviously that makes sense, but not in the way you phrased it - it clearly alludes to BE name being worth $500M. So I suggest that if you are going to state something, make sure it is clear.
-
You obviously missed a separate thread where the discussion was on the power of brands. Our Wizard of South Wayne stated that launching a new brand is "easy, and cheap to do, too."
I never said that. Please don't accuse me of being a "bully" and then not quoting me accurately. If you had a strong argument, you wouldn't need to do this.
fact is, creating and successfully launching a new brand is bloody difficult and terribly expensive. At PepsiCo there was a huge uptick in share value just on the strength of our brands. If you looked at our P:E's it was easy to see the equity in our brands and this was critical as a FMCG company. That's why each and every Annual Report always said, "Power Brands" on the cover and featured logos.
If one is interested in how you extract value from a brand some of the best work is done by PepsiCo. There are HBS cases on Gatorade, Cracker Jack, and California Pizza Kitchen. Each was a PepsiCo acquisition and went from being either unloved/mismanaged, dying, or incipient and turned into cash machines. But for every Gatorade there are a dozen Snapples.
Again, as someone who does this as well, you are overstating how difficult and expensive it would be. And don't compare it to a consumer product, because it really isn't comperable.
-
I never said that. Please don't accuse me of being a "bully" and then not quoting me accurately. If you had a strong argument, you wouldn't need to do this.
Again, as someone who does this as well, you are overstating how difficult and expensive it would be. And don't compare it to a consumer product, because it really isn't comperable.
I don't think either of you know what you are talking about.
Keefe is closer than Sultan, who has offered nothing in this thread to back up his multiple claims. So Sultan, if it's not worth $500MM, what is it worth? Truth is, you have no freaking clue what it's worth. YOU don't THINK it's worth that much, so in your world it's not. Gee that was easy!
FOX, who is actually in a position to know (as much as can really be known about something as nebulous as brand value), has offered a tremendous amount of money for rights to the conference. Those rights fees are not the value of the brand. FOX is offering that contract for multiple reasons (they need content, the rights are available at the right time, etc.). But I can assure you that one of the reasons they are doing so is that they will be able to charge advertisers more for impressions in "Big East Basketball" than they could ever charge for impressions in "Conference X" basketball even if the audience sizes were identical. That premium on ad inventory versus comparable "product" is part of the reason why the Big East brand has value.
Additionally, Big East Basketball gives FOX a programming anchor on the new network, something established and well-regarded that will immediately draw a vast # of incremental eyeballs. Those incremental eyeballs have immense value to FOX. Would "Conference X Basketball" provide the same incrementality? Hard to say but I doubt it. That is the value of the Big East Brand.
Lastly, Big East Basketball will draw numerous new advertisers to FOX Sports 1 or whatever it is called. These advertisers will not be allowed to just buy inventory in basketball, they will be required to buy other programming as well. In that way, FOX is leveraging Big East Basketball to increase ad revenue across all their other programming as well. Would this dynanic occur if their basketball product was called something else? Yes, but the equity of the Big East Brand will likely bring in more advertiser interest than whatever new name they come up with.
So Sultan, why is it not worth $500MM again?
-
I don't think either of you know what you are talking about.
Keefe is closer than Sultan, who has offered nothing in this thread to back up his multiple claims. So Sultan, if it's not worth $500MM, what is it worth? Truth is, you have no freaking clue what it's worth. YOU don't THINK it's worth that much, so in your world it's not. Gee that was easy!
Actually you should go back and re-read the entire thread. Now that keefe clarified that the entire properties were worth that much, I agree with that. What I don't agree with that the Big East name alone was worth that, which is how his initial post read.
-
So, I know this is probably is near impossible to happen, but I think it would make sense for UConn and Cincy to become independent in football and join the C-7, Butler and Xavier (along with Dayton/SLU/VCU, etc). That gives the conference a strong 11 teams.
-
I never said that. Please don't accuse me of being a "bully" and then not quoting me accurately. If you had a strong argument, you wouldn't need to do this.
Again, as someone who does this as well, you are overstating how difficult and expensive it would be. And don't compare it to a consumer product, because it really isn't comperable.
Here are your comments on launching new brands. All you have to do is come up with a catchy name, catchy logo...low six figures...you're already advertising...
What the hell company do you work for and what is your role? Your comments reflect a naivete
Re: Big East may sell name to C-7
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2013, 03:56:55 PM »
I would buy it if it were cheap...but new names and new brands can be developed. What's most important is that they play high-level, quality basketball
Re: Big East may sell name to C-7
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2013, 04:45:32 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: akmarq on February 26, 2013, 04:09:26 PM
Agreed
Keep in mind that it's not a choice between the cost of the Big East name and a $0 cost to develop a new name. Choosing to create a new brand is going to incur some VERY high costs (advertising, development, market research) and also come with a bit of a lag time before it becomes 'common parlance.' If the Big East isn't being ransomed for some ridiculous sum (I won't put a number to this without more specifics) then you pay for it and save a lot of headaches.
I think you are overestimating the potential costs. I can't imagine, for instance, what "advertising" will need to be done that isn't done already. I would guess that it wouldn't go much into the seven figures, and I think the BE will want more than that.
Re: Big East may sell name to C-7
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2013, 05:21:49 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 05:03:04 PM
The New Coke repositioning cost 9 figures. And was an abysmal failure. The SW Bell morph into the new AT&T and Esso into Exxon cost the same.
Closer to home, Li-Ning's global marketing spend for the D Wade Brand launch will exceed $40MM in the first year. And that is just above the line spend. Incremental to that is research which would approximate $4-5MM then below the line market or trade support that will easily exceed $20MM. That is more than $60MM in direct and indirect marketing spend in Year 1.
Launching a Brand is bloody difficult and extremely expensive. $60MM+ for an athletic shoe.
It would be absolutely nothing like that. We have done pretty extensive branding initiatives here, with focus groups, message development, graphics, etc. for low six figures. This would obviously be more extensive than that, but since they aren't going to launch an extensive external advertising campaign, the costs are going to be held in check.
I mean really, you come up with a catchy name...a catchy logo...and the branding of that conference is done through success on the court. Yeah, you have to do some advertising, but it is likely advertising that you do already.
Re: Big East may sell name to C-7
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2013, 05:24:08 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 05:19:34 PM
This is an umbrella brand positioning. Each school under the umbrella sells tees, jerseys, mugs, shot glasses, dog cushions, tickets, local broadcast rights, etc... Building the Conference Brand and vesting value in its equity is crucial to all of this. Think about it this way:
Painted on the Al Court were the words "Conference USA."
Those words were changed to "Big East."
Which did you feel better about? And did you feel a lot better about it? Brands are powerful mechanisms for making you feel good and want to be a part of it. See all those people getting up off their wallets to buy NFL licensed merchandise? It works. But it costs money.
Right. Brand equity. But really how much is that worth?
-
I see you couldn't actually find anything close to the quote you manufactured. Apology accepted.
-
I don't understand why we all can't get along?.
-
I don't understand why we all can't get along?.
The irony is that I was just quoting the OTL guests for the folks here who couldn't see the show. Not even my views!
-
I see you couldn't actually find anything close to the quote you manufactured. Apology accepted.
Keep countin your pennies. I have 12 million reasons to laugh.
-
Keep countin your pennies. I have 12 million reasons to laugh.
Congratulations on the most pompous post ever. Possibly in the history of the Internet.