ou donation

WTSooner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
11,812
Reaction score
847
OU made 8 mil in athletic dept profit last year .. (enough to pay the full buy out)

Joe C is just cheap ..
Liar.


Pages 40 and 41, straight from OU.

OU has NEVER had a profit of $8M in a year from the athletic department.
 
Last edited:
Liar.


Pages 40 and 41, straight from OU.

OU has NEVER had a profit of $8M in a year from the athletic department.
lol that is funny ...






the Athletic dept recorded a profit of 2.6 mil .. AND they gave the university 6.3 mil ..

The Sooners had $206,189,277 in total operating expenses, though the school brought in $2,640,499 in excess revenue above that, but the expense total doesn't include the nearly $6.3 million transferred back to the institution from athletics.

math is hard but 2.6 + 6.3 is 8.9 ..


(not even talking about the fact that OU could cut 40 mil in spending tomorrow if it needed to )
 
lol that is funny ...






the Athletic dept recorded a profit of 2.6 mil .. AND they gave the university 6.3 mil ..



math is hard but 2.6 + 6.3 is 8.9 ..
And they do that every year and they are going to continue to do that every year.

So it's part of the budget and is expected. You don't get to back it out because you disagree with OU's philosophy of paying the University back for scholarships.

You were being misleading and you know it. But it's expected.
 
And they do that every year and they are going to continue to do that every year.

So it's part of the budget and is expected. You don't get to back it out because you disagree with OU's philosophy of paying the University back for scholarships.

You were being misleading and you know it. But it's expected.
that is not the scholarships

that is over and above that

the scholarships are part of the expenses .. the 6 mil is just CASH ..
 
lol that is funny ...






the Athletic dept recorded a profit of 2.6 mil .. AND they gave the university 6.3 mil ..



math is hard but 2.6 + 6.3 is 8.9 ..


(not even talking about the fact that OU could cut 40 mil in spending tomorrow if it needed to )
And actually, I just found the article your quote came from.

Read it again. It's saying the amount transferred back to the University is NOT included in the expense number. So you are wrong. Again. On no planet did the OU athletic department turn a profit of $8M.

And what an idiotic comment about OU cutting $40M if they needed to. Just stupid. In an environment where you have to spend more to get ahead, you think they could cut damn near 25% of their expenses? And still be competitive? LOL
 
You literally posted the answer but wasn't smart enough to read it and comprehend it.

Laughable.
 
And actually, I just found the article your quote came from.

Read it again. It's saying the amount transferred back to the University is NOT included in the expense number. So you are wrong. Again. On no planet did the OU athletic department turn a profit of $8M.

And what an idiotic comment about OU cutting $40M if they needed to. Just stupid. In an environment where you have to spend more to get ahead, you think they could cut damn near 25% of their expenses? And still be competitive? LOL
right the 6 mil is not part of the expenses (scholarships ARE part of the expenses) the 6 mil is extra money just transfered to the University ..



athletic depts are NOT designed to make any money the spend spend spend ..

do you think OU needs like 50 deputy Athletic directors ?


you are close to taking a break from the board ..
 

The Sooners had $206,189,277 in total operating expenses, though the school brought in $2,640,499 in excess revenue above that, but the expense total doesn’t include the nearly $6.3 million transferred back to the institution from athletics.
 
right the 6 mil is not part of the expenses (scholarships ARE part of the expenses) the 6 mil is extra money just transfered to the University ..

you are close to taking a break from the board ..
So they turned a profit of $2M AND sent and extra $6M cash to the University. Check your math bud. That doesn't mean they made a profit of $8M.

I'll keep busting you up on this as long as you keep lying or misrepresenting the facts. Period.
 

The Sooners had $206,189,277 in total operating expenses, though the school brought in $2,640,499 in excess revenue above that, but the expense total doesn’t include the nearly $6.3 million transferred back to the institution from athletics.
reading is hard for you ..
 
Liar.


Pages 40 and 41, straight from OU.

OU has NEVER had a profit of $8M in a year from the athletic department.
Take a breather WT, dang
 
reading is hard for you ..
What are you missing here?

Reported Revenue - $208.8M
Reported Expenses - $206.2M
Reported Net Income - $2.6M

Additional Expenses (Not Reported) - $6.3M
Updated Net Income (Loss) - ($3.7M)

What are you missing here? They reported net income of $2.6M. If they had additional expenses or additional payments were made (whether they were expenses or transfers or whatever), that would not increase net income, it would decrease it. That is basic accounting. That is basic math. In no world can you say the OU AD paid additional monies that aren't reflected in the expense number, and somehow say that increases their actual net income. That makes ZERO sense.
 
do you think OU needs like 50 deputy Athletic directors ?
Show me the list of those 50 names and I'll let you know.

OU has far less personnel than most SEC athletic departments, so I'm going to say yes, it's likely they are needed.
 
What are you missing here?

Reported Revenue - $208.8M
Reported Expenses - $206.2M
Reported Net Income - $2.6M

Additional Expenses (Not Reported) - $6.3M
Updated Net Income (Loss) - ($3.7M)

What are you missing here? They reported net income of $2.6M. If they had additional expenses or additional payments were made (whether they were expenses or transfers or whatever), that would not increase net income, it would decrease it. That is basic accounting. That is basic math. In no world can you say the OU AD paid additional monies that aren't reflected in the expense number, and somehow say that increases their actual net income. That makes ZERO sense.
I'll add to this:

It sounds like the $6.3 is simply a cash transfer. So it wouldn't be an expense. Which wouldn't change the $2.6M net income. It certainly wouldn't increase it, but it's likely that it's not an expense, and is simply a transfer of cash. That wouldn't change Revenue, Expenses, or Net Income.
 
What are you missing here?

Reported Revenue - $208.8M
Reported Expenses - $206.2M
Reported Net Income - $2.6M

Additional Expenses (Not Reported) - $6.3M
Updated Net Income (Loss) - ($3.7M)

What are you missing here? They reported net income of $2.6M. If they had additional expenses or additional payments were made (whether they were expenses or transfers or whatever), that would not increase net income, it would decrease it. That is basic accounting. That is basic math. In no world can you say the OU AD paid additional monies that aren't reflected in the expense number, and somehow say that increases their actual net income. That makes ZERO sense.
Still waiting on a response boulder. I can't lay it out any clearer. If the $6.3M has ANY affect on the numbers, it would be an increase to expenses, which would decrease net income. Nothing opinionated about that. That is a fact. Admit you were wrong and move along.
 
Back
Top