Jump to content
MizzouGrad

RTC Discussion

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Cptafw164 said:

You sound like someone who doesn't know anything about the military AND someone who cant read.  I never said unemployed.  I was referring to the FACT that upon graduation, even if they have a job, they havent found their career within the field of study they specialized in and don't have a high enough salary to pay their "student mortgage" plus the expenses of living on their own.    And, if you want to talk about suicides, how many non-veterans commit suicide every day?  I would wager its more than 22.  Seems like the upper middle class white collar types are more succeptible to that than a veteran.  

But you seem to know everything.  I'm glad you have your life all figured out and know so much about the dangers of warfare.  I am also assuming that you have an APA certification and know exactly how "crippling" PTSD is.  It isn't so bad with treatment.  Technically, half of america got PTSD in November of 2016. 

"am also assuming that you have an APA certification and know exactly how "crippling" PTSD is.  It isn't so bad with treatment".

And you accused someone of not knowing anything about the military?

Are you a trigger puller, squad leader, platoon sergeant, Corpsman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Antitroll2828 said:

This guy ^^ Yea and plenty of parents would thrilled knowing there child received a great education, still got to train and compete at a high level and now at 22 they have a good job and possibly there career immediately ,while most there friends and peers move back home at 22 23 and spend the next 5 years of there life trying to find a job and figure everything out. And I’m pretty sure no parent wants there child to go to any conflict regardless but at the end of the day that’s not the parents call, if an individual wants to answer that call and sign on the dotted line then I’m pretty certain any parent would be thrilled to see there kid go the West Point /Annapolis route then just being a regular enlistee 

Guess who has been awarded the most Medals of Honor, Bronze and Silver Stars, Navy Crosses and Purple Hearts?

Those good ole REGULAR ENLISTEE'S.

The entire United States Marine Corps exist to support a five man team, all enlisted, 19-21 years old.

Edited by ResiliteMarine
Additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, ResiliteMarine said:

"am also assuming that you have an APA certification and know exactly how "crippling" PTSD is.  It isn't so bad with treatment".

And you accused someone of not knowing anything about the military?

Are you a trigger puller, squad leader, platoon sergeant, Corpsman?

Active duty Army, 16 years, combat arms.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jchapman said:

"Most college graduates spend 3-5 years after graduation living with their parents until they get the job they want (or just any job for that matter)."

Perhaps you don't under stand the definition of unemployed?

 

Annual number of suicides in the US per 100,000 population. 2000-2010:

Never served in military:  Women = 5.2  Men = 20.9

Veterans and Active Service:  Women = 28.7  Men = 32.1

 

If you seriously compared the disappointment of an election outcome to PTSD, then you are part of the problem.

According to the DSM, criteria for an event to be deemed relevant to a PTSD diagnosis (traumatic event) are that you feel a threat upon your life and it causes your day to day life and outlook to change (depression, anxiety, etc).  It can be acute short term, temporary or chronic.  So, if someone thinks the world is going to end and becomes depressed because of it, it is considered a traumatic event.  You have to admit, some people haven't gotten over it and it has consumed their life.  

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cptafw164 said:

 

Active duty Army, 16 years, combat arms.   

Thanks for serving. However, PTSD isn't something everyone diagnosed  with can just kick it to the side.  It does hinder civilian life, cause suicides, divorce etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 11:59 AM, wrestlingnerd said:

Spoken like a low level bean counter. Thanks for the valuable contribution to the thread, as off the mark as it was. You added so much to the discussion. 

Thank you for your valuable contribution, which was stating the financials were useless because they didn’t provide us with enough to derive free cash flow...when in fact they do. You then smugly offered to educate the unwashed masses by defining free cash flow as “how much money was coming in and how quickly.”

And I’m glad you attempted to insult me by calling me a low level bean counter. I’m not, but you thinking it’s an insult to call someone an everyday accountant shows your true colors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can recount it the way you want but the fact that you called me out for being wrong when I wasn’t by nitpicking a phrase within a sentence and completely missing the context of the discussion is all that really matters. Have fun putting together the CFS, though. We’re all dying to know what it looks like!

Bean counter or not, the fact that you even have the largely worthless certifications you bandied about like they’re Ivy League degrees is the salient point about how valuable your assessment of the RTC landscape is. 

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

wrestlingnerd, can you address steamboat_charlie's post?

I just read it. He basically says "I agree with the you directionally but the specific financials for that particular year are not useless", or something to that effect. He also makes the point that RTCs are largely predictable "businesses". OK. I don't disagree with any of that, other than to say, they may not be useless for THAT particular  year..... and to be clear, I still think they're pretty useless for the purposes of really understanding the cash flow trends of NLWC.

Addressing it more specifically than that and getting back to the original topic to which I was responding in the first place: 

1. I honestly haven't looked at the links and don't  care to because I know what I'll find. Nothing that tells me much about which RTCs are viable or not.

2. Again, one single donor can make an RTC a big deal immediately. There are several RTCs attached to programs that matter to some powerful people, so It's shortsighted to assume only two are long-term viable (I disagree mostly with this point from the OP).

3. Making any guesses as to how much money PSU really has to operate its RTC based on those filings from several years ago is a futile exercise. Guys like M "the Oracle of Themat" Dogg can kill themselves to produce anything useful from them, but I won't waste my time. They're not that useful to make the point the OP made. I do agree with the OP that it's only a few RTCs that can be long-term competitive at the elite level, just not with the number two and absolutely not because of any tax filings. That's my point.

4. While RTCs might be predictable on average, it only takes one year of extraordinary initiatives (the funding of new facilities, the pursuit of even just one but more likely several superstars, etc.) to make them not predictable again. As they say in finance, they're predictable "until they're not...." 

Is that response and opinion good enough for you, or should I attach my CV for you like MDogg did?

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

I just read it. He basically says "I agree with the you directionally but the specific financials for that particular year are not useless", or something to that effect. He also makes the point that RTCs are largely predictable "businesses". OK. I don't disagree with any of that, other than to say, they may not be useless for THAT particular  year..... and to be clear, I still think they're pretty useless for the purposes of really understanding the cash flow trends of NLWC.

Addressing it more specifically than that and getting back to the original topic to which I was responding in the first place: 

1. I honestly haven't looked at the links and don't  care to because I know what I'll find. Nothing that tells me much about which RTCs are viable or not.

2. Again, one single donor can make an RTC a big deal immediately. There are several RTCs attached to programs that matter to some powerful people, so It's shortsighted to assume only two are long-term viable (I disagree mostly with this point from the OP).

3. Making any guesses as to how much money PSU really has to operate its RTC based on those filings from several years ago is a futile exercise. Guys like M "the Oracle of Themat" Dogg can kill themselves to produce anything useful from them, but I won't waste my time. They're not that useful to make the point the OP made. I do agree with the OP that it's only a few RTCs that can be long-term competitive at the elite level, just not with the number two and absolutely not because of any tax filings. That's my point.

4. While RTCs might be predictable on average, it only takes one year of extraordinary initiatives (the funding of new facilities, the pursuit of even just one but more likely several superstars, etc.) to make them not predictable again. As they say in finance, they're predictable "until they're not...." 

Is that response and opinion good enough for you, or should I attach my CV for you like MDogg did?

Well considering you admitted to not even reading the links, no, that's probably not good enough.  To some of your points:

2.) Agreed.   But I think that begs the question, if you are dependent on a single donation to be viable, are you really viable?...  However, I think crucial to this whole thread is how does one even define "long-term viable."   IMO, for an RTC to be "viable" in general, they should be able to provide a living wage to its coaches and some wrestlers.     And quite honestly, it looks like most RTC's have annual revenues (including NLWC) of less than $500K.   With insurance, etc, how far can that really go?    For example, maybe it was creative accounting but in all but one (Ohio) of the 5 recent forms steamboat_charlie posted, expenses were higher than revenue, and Penn RTC is listed as having negative assets.  So outside of the "one single donation," I'm honestly not sure if ANY of them are really long-term viable. 

3.) The Flo article included several years of filings, and steamboat_charlie provided the most recent.  You still don't think all of those give you at least a "guess" as to how much money NLWC really has?   The Flo article also included their annual support from 2009-2015, and tying back to point 1, among the top 5 clubs, only NLWC had one crazy outlier year.   Bottom line, those forms show their assets, revenue, and expenses among other things over multiple years.   I guess my question is, can you take a look at the forms and tell us what specific measure is missing in order to draw a conclusion?   As noted, it appears at least the majority of what goes into "free cash flow" is included in those filings, and that seemed to be the only other measure you were looking for in order to be able to draw a conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single donors trigger an avalanche of donations. I gave specific examples of a few already, mainly from the Ivies, since those were among the most recent donors. e.g. Friedman at Cornell and Novogratz at Princeton, but there are many others even in wrestling's little world and not just at the Ivies (Art Martori and ASU/Sunkist Kids have a long history to throw out just one of many examples). Could the programs have survived and done OK without those single donors? Probably. Would they be where they are today, with legit RTCs that are very likely long-term viable? No. Even PSU had a large single donor contribute the majority of their "slush fund", not that they even really needed that guy.

I used to work at a school with a very large endowment (many billions). Don't tell me wealthy alumni can't make a sustained push for a specific cause. It happens all the time and is one of the key ways (if not the key) in which capital projects get funded at universities. I don't know the situation at Iowa specifically, but I'd be surprised if 5-10% of the donors did not contribute 90%+ of the funds.

What does long-term viable mean? To me, it means having supportive alumni with means and a budding track record of success to inspire their interests as well as those of others who can pile in.

What do tax filings tell you at all about these rich guys' intentions? Jack sht. Look at tOSU building their new wrestling complex. Could you have predicted that from a tax filing? What about Cornell's plans to upgrade Friedman's center? There are guys who wrestled at Columbia, Penn, Michigan, et al that could all of a sudden thrust their RTC of choice into the limelight with a single wire (from their personal checking accounts, no less...).

As for your point about the accounting nitpicking clusterf that this thread has become.... I did NOT say FCF is all you need. That is an asinine comment (sorry to be "smug", MDogg). There is no single financial metric that you can hang your hat on in isolation and there never, ever will be. There's a reason there are three necessary and complementary financial statements and not just one.... All I said was that FCF is a better measure of the long-term financial trajectory of an RTC than a snapshot in time of its net assets, which tells you very little other than how much money was raised most recently. And for the millionth time, even if you were to be able to cobble together a cash flow statement from whatever links people post on here, so what? You'd get a more accurate view of the RTC's financial activities for that trailing period, and that's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Single donors trigger an avalanche of donations. I gave specific examples of a few already, mainly from the Ivies, since those were among the most recent donors. e.g. Friedman at Cornell and Novogratz at Princeton, but there are many others even in wrestling's little world and not just at the Ivies (Art Martori and ASU/Sunkist Kids have a long history to throw out just one of many examples). Could the programs have survived and done OK without those single donors? Probably. Would they be where they are today, with legit RTCs that are very likely long-term viable? No. Even PSU had a large single donor contribute the majority of their "slush fund", not that they even really needed that guy.

I used to work at a school with a very large endowment (many billions). Don't tell me wealthy alumni can't make a sustained push for a specific cause. It happens all the time and is one of the key ways (if not the key) in which capital projects get funded at universities. I don't know the situation at Iowa specifically, but I'd be surprised if 5-10% of the donors did not contribute 90%+ of the funds.

What does long-term viable mean? To me, it means having supportive alumni with means and a budding track record of success to inspire their interests as well as those of others who can pile in.

What do tax filings tell you at all about these rich guys' intentions? Jack sht. Look at tOSU building their new wrestling complex. Could you have predicted that from a tax filing? What about Cornell's plans to upgrade Friedman's center? There are guys who wrestled at Columbia, Penn, Michigan, et al that could all of a sudden thrust their RTC of choice into the limelight with a single wire (from their personal checking accounts, no less...).

As for your point about the accounting nitpicking clusterf that this thread has become.... I did NOT say FCF is all you need. That is an asinine comment (sorry to be "smug", MDogg). There is no single financial metric that you can hang your hat on in isolation and there never, ever will be. There's a reason there are three necessary and complementary financial statements and not just one.... All I said was that FCF is a better measure of the long-term financial trajectory of an RTC than a snapshot in time of its net assets, which tells you very little other than how much money was raised most recently. And for the millionth time, even if you were to be able to cobble together a cash flow statement from whatever links people post on here, so what? You'd get a more accurate view of the RTC's financial activities for that trailing period, and that's it. 

Agree about the "single donors," but it's pretty evident if there was a "single donor" in the filings provided, such as with the NLWC.   

I think most would agree that tax filings are not meant to predict the future.  But it tells you about their history, and in most cases should at least be able to give you an indication of if that history can (or how long it can) repeat itself.

I didn't mean that you said "Free Cash Flow is all you need."  However you did say multiple times about the importance of Free Cash Flow:

3. Net assets matter, but more important is free cash flow. For the folks who don’t speak accounting, one is a snapshot in time of how much is “in the bank” while the other is a measure of how much much money is coming in and how quickly. None of that data shows that.

FCF is the truest way to measure whether your balance sheet is likely to increase in cash over time or not. 

net assets (a very balance sheet-focused snapshot view) are not necessarily indicative of which RTCs are financially viable. I suggested a better metric, which is unavailable, is free cash flow, since (as you should know) it is much more indicative of the trend that those net assets are likely to take

To know who is accumulating assets, the best measure is how much money is left after all operating expenses and necessary capital expenditures. That is the money that can be used to further expand (or not), recruit athletes, etc. As I've already explained, revenue is useless for that and even expenses don't give the full picture. My point was that an income statement or a balance sheet are not that meaningful without a cash flow statement to go along with them 

The Google definition of FCF is technically accurate but not that helpful in practice other than to a lowly bean counter because you need to calculate the specific component parts you pulled from Google. Generally, investors who assess a company’s cash trends focus on more readily and quickly available data, as I explained above. EBITDA - CX is generally a decent approximation and much more often used  in investing circles, and theirs is the relevant perspective when discussing which RTCs are likely to be competitive in the future as going concerns.

So regardless of whether you will still say it's not enough, how much more is needed to get an approximation of FCF?   Looking at the most recent NLWC form that steamboat_charlie posted (https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2017/251/408/2017-251408517-103dfd14-9.pdf), I see line items for revenue, interest expense, taxes, depreciation, amortization and expenditures.

I know there are three necessary financial forms.  And the above link includes sections titled Statement of Revenue/Statement of Functional Expenses, and Balance Sheet.  So it does seem the main thing missing is Free Cash Flow, which again goes back to the prior question (real question, not rhetorical): what is missing in order to at least estimate FCF if not get a pretty good idea of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

The formula for FCF is not a mystery. Someone Googled it and posted it. I gave the more convenient shorthand for it. Calculate it yourself. I’m not going to do it for you. 

So then you do think that the documents provided give enough info to approximate FCF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Approximate, maybe. I haven’t looked at the docs. Build a CFS off of them? No. Does any of that matter much to the original topic? No.....

I do think the financial data is relevant to the original topic.  But you were the one dismissing what was provided (despite apparently not even looking at it) and harping on FCF instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Still think it’s all about alumni but believe what you will. 

It is, but the history of those alumni donations are included in the data provided.  Unless you're referring to mysterious future donations that may or may not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

It is, but the history of those alumni donations are included in the data provided.  Unless you're referring to mysterious future donations that may or may not happen.

I am absolutely referring to that. I even singled out specific RTCs to watch. History of donations tells you nothing about timing or level of participation for future donations. It’s pretty useless, really. RTCs are an arms race. The rich get richer and they do it because of wealthy alumni. When the next big push is is anyone’s guess. Who will be in that arms race is not a mystery. Not too many schools are good at wrestling with very wealthy wrestling alumni. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me? I have no accounting or finance credentials at all. Nada. Zip.
I’m a big picture guy. The picture I see developing is piles of money being funneled to RTCs specifically intended to avoid the institutional constraints and controls imposed by schools and the NCAA, along with a forum for recruiting that is also beyond routine school and NCAA constraints.
Is this improving the USA performance on the world wrestling stage? It may be. Or this could be the first crop of US wrestlers with ready access to tremendous technique libraries and training from early ages.
Anyhow, with big piles of money being poured into gray areas with minimal oversight you just know that someone is going to take it too far.
Till then I’ll be tuning in to see these RTC studs take it to each other at the Bill Farrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...