View Single Post
Old 11-16-2012, 04:26 PM   #25
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,063

"Interesting that NYC had a hard time determining USTA revenue "

There is no evidence the City had a hard time. I was making light of the disagreement between the two parties on the revenue number as it is defined under the lease agreement. The lease is a tangent. But I don't mind talking about it. The lease plays an important part in the anals of NYC political history. It was used and abused for political purposes by ex-Mayor Giuliani.

-- Maybe Cincinnatti or IW money was an issue --

No, for reasons you won't find surprising. The lease involves use of a city park. Rent is based on revenue derived from activities at the tennis site located at the park.

" Anyway what kind of lease involves off-site revenue? "

It doesn't from what I can infer of its terms from the audit report but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "off-site revenue." For example, the City took the position that revenue included the sponsor money generated by a broadcast of matches to a screen set up at Rockefeller Center. Is that "off-site" revenue to you ? Incidentally, given the lease provisions each cited I thought the City had the (much) stronger position.

"The tennis magazine article may have had info that they don't want to attribute, so for now I think estimates of 8%-11%-14% will have to do."

Remember when you mixed in O2 prize money instead of USO ? You're mixing again. Let's set aside that her methodoloy is flawed. It might make sense to guestimate revenue if the numbers didn't have to be provided to the IRS and made available to the public and if GAAP financials were't out there. She is talking about singles prize money.

Our 11-14% range is based on total prize money , about $25 million prize money. If you look only at singles that number was about $19 M this year so let's call it $18 M since we're looking at either 2009 revenue (GAAP income statement) or 2010 revenue (USTA Form 990 w/o including NTC money) . That would be a range of depending on which revenue figure you use, $177 or $205, of 8.8%-10% (she may get 8.6% because she is using actual prize money not estimate of a prior year prize money like I did). So if you adjust total for singles, she is within the same range.

The reason for a discrepency on the two forms and the resulting range would come down to differences in the rules for preparing the two documents and/or my lack of knowledge as to why they did or didn't carve out ticket revenue from the USTA 990 and stick it in the NTC 990. So that's my project. Because we shouldn't have a range. Unlike the city and the USTA we aren't negotiating what a lease term means. We are just taking numbers off a financial statement.

"But the fairness of that is only one issue. Like Federer has been saying, the distribution of prize money, and making it possible for new players, is a huge issue."

Yes, I agree. But I stick with my previous comment, I think it's involved. But speaking of fairness how about the money paid (or not) to refs, linespeople and volunteers.

Here is your link to the audit report. Go crazy.
Tshooter is offline   Reply With Quote