Started By
Message
re: A clearer picture regarding LSU and the rumors around private equity is emerging
Posted on 8/10/26 at 9:48 am to Tigerpride18
Posted on 8/10/26 at 9:48 am to Tigerpride18
quote:
...not sure why anyone gives two shits about any of this.
Some of us care about the fate of LSU even if we aren't specifically fans. And some us have seen and experienced first hand how private equity works its evil. Maybe LSU has wriggled a legal way out of this being exploited - and really hope this is just a 'private equity' deal in name only, with the reality being it's a more typical good-ole-boy way of funneling money into the program. Which I'm just fine with.
But a true private equity entity is whole different story. They would love to get their claws into a public institution like LSU (or any other of that stature) because they know that when they do their thing, and start to squeeze for their money, LSU will first appeal to their boosters and raise tuition. When that's not enough, they'll wrangle it out of the state budget. And when that's not enough, they'll get a federal bail out.
A PE golden parachute all paid for by the taxpayer.
That's the scenario many of us are giving two shits about.
This post was edited on 8/10/26 at 9:50 am
0
Posted on 8/10/26 at 9:54 am to captdalton
quote:
If that were the case there would be no need for this. Ausberry would not have warned fans that LSU faces a $25-35 million dollar deficit this year. Ausberry would never have mentioned outside funding, include private equity. Your own athletic director stated there are not enough donations and TV revenue to cover LSU’s expenses this year
so your thought is that somehow lsu is the only school in the country thats in a position to have to do something like this, when they have more donations than 90 percent of d1 schools. it just doesnt make sense .
Posted on 8/10/26 at 10:11 am to jangalang
quote:
If yall are gutting future financial earnings now just wait for the pain when kiffiin doesnt work out
Ah yes.... because every AU HC has worked out for y'all.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 10:17 am to Tigerpride18
quote:
so your thought is that somehow lsu is the only school in the country thats in a position to have to do something like this, when they have more donations than 90 percent of d1 schools. it just doesnt make sense .
what % of schools owed roughly $70M to fired football coaches and additional millions to buy out a new coaching staff while having a top 3 paid HC, highest paid OC and 2nd highest paid DC?
Posted on 8/10/26 at 10:19 am to SidewalkTiger
This all sounds like siphoning money from a public entity to a private one....
I think I've seen this with LSU before....
I think I've seen this with LSU before....
Posted on 8/10/26 at 10:47 am to captdalton
quote:quote:
the school will continue to receive enough funds from donors and media deals to do whatever they need to do to keep up with most of the conference
If that were the case there would be no need for this. Ausberry would not have warned fans that LSU faces a $25-35 million dollar deficit this year. Ausberry would never have mentioned outside funding, include private equity. Your own athletic director stated there are not enough donations and TV revenue to cover LSU’s expenses this year.
Based on his quote, it seems like he's saying it's a deficit now but there's a chance there won't be when all football revenue is considered at the end of the season.
Ausberry:
quote:
Our football season ticket sales are off the chart right now. We had 32,000 requests (up to 44,000 now). We are way over. Our corporate sponsors are at about 25 percent over. Our fund raising is way over. We haven’t calculated all this yet, but we have to still act like we’re going to be in a deficit. That’s how we’ll treat it. It is time fiscally to start looking at this anyway.
This post was edited on 8/10/26 at 10:50 am
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:05 am to Tigerpride18
quote:
so your thought is that somehow lsu is the only school in the country thats in a position to have to do something like this, when they have more donations than 90 percent of d1 schools. it just doesnt make sense .
All schools need funding.
But not many schools went on a $175+ million dollar shopping spree this year on football and basketball. I can’t think of a single one. How many other schools spent $85 million on buyouts of their AD, head football coach, head basketball coach and the buy outs for the football and basketball coaches they hired? Add in the cost of the new coaches annual salaries ($13 million and $4 million), the richest NIL classes in the history of LSU football (>$40 million) and basketball (>$12 million), and $20 million in revenue sharing,
That comes to roughly $175 million. You still have to add in some of the highest paid assistants in the game, travel, admin, equipment, facilities, upkeep, recruiting, housing/nutrition, scholarships, etc., etc., etc. and LSU is going to spend way more than $200 million this year on football and basketball. LSU spent more on buyouts alone than many universities spend on football and basketball combined in total.
If LSU had all the donations they needed they wouldn’t be discussing selling a share of future earnings to private investors.
LSU fans loved gloating about how much they were spending on coaches and players. They don’t seem to be as enthusiastic about actually paying for it.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter where LSU ranks in terms of fundraising and donations relative to other schools. It matters whether this amount is greater than their expenses. You can increase your income, but still lose money if expenses rose more than income.
A lot of this is basic economics yet some people seem flummoxed by it.
This post was edited on 8/10/26 at 11:17 am
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:09 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Our football season ticket sales are off the chart right now. We had 32,000 requests (up to 44,000 now). We are way over. Our corporate sponsors are at about 25 percent over. Our fund raising is way over. We haven’t calculated all this yet, but we have to still act like we’re going to be in a deficit. That’s how we’ll treat it. It is time fiscally to start looking at this anyway.
So let me ask you. Does this mean LSU had 40,000 open seats available in Tiger Stadium? Did they sell an additional 40,000 season ticket packages?
If not, are they adding 40,000 new seats? How much will that cost?
Or did the waiting list just get longer?
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:12 am to captdalton
quote:
So let me ask you. Does this mean LSU had 40,000 open seats available in Tiger Stadium? Did they sell an additional 40,000 season ticket packages?
If not, are they adding 40,000 new seats? How much will that cost?
Or did the waiting list just get longer?
I have no clue what he meant by that, that's just his quote.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:19 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
I have no clue what he meant by that, that's just his quote
So you don’t possess the common sense to know whether Tiger Stadium had 40,000 available seats to sell and you don’t have the common sense to use the internet to find out.
That certainly explains your confusion.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:21 am to captdalton
quote:
So you don’t possess the common sense to know whether Tiger Stadium had 40,000 available seats to sell and you don’t have the common sense to use the internet to find out.
That certainly explains your confusion.
You're the LSU expert here
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:27 am to SidewalkTiger
Here you go...
The easiest way to understand the proposed LSU deal is that LSU is **not simply selling 9% of its annual SEC TV check for $100 million.**
LSU would create a separate company that receives its SEC/ESPN broadcast revenue. An investor would put **$100 million into that company for a 9% ownership stake** and reportedly receive **7% of the company’s profits**. LSU could later sell another 11%, but would still control roughly 80% of the company.
The idea is to turn LSU’s predictable SEC TV revenue into something more like a long-term investment fund. Instead of simply receiving the SEC check every year and spending it, the new company could invest money, buy revenue-producing assets, and hopefully create additional income that isn’t dependent entirely on donations, ticket sales or TV revenue.
The $100 million for 9% also implies the new company is being valued at roughly **$1.1 billion**.
The big question is what LSU does with the $100 million.
If most of it stays in the company and gets invested, this could be a really smart move. For example, $100 million earning around 7% annually could generate roughly $7 million per year, and over time compounding could create a very large permanent revenue source for LSU athletics. LSU would still own the large majority of the company.
If LSU instead takes the $100 million and immediately spends it on things like coaching buyouts, contracts, NIL/roster costs, etc., then the deal looks much worse. In that scenario LSU would basically be giving up part of the future value of its SEC revenue to pay today’s bills.
It also apparently isn't structured like a normal loan. LSU wouldn't simply owe the investor $100 million plus interest on a set repayment date. The investor is buying equity and taking investment risk in exchange for a share of future profits and the value of his ownership stake.
So IMO the concept itself isn't necessarily LSU being desperate or "selling its TV rights." It could basically be LSU using its extremely valuable and predictable SEC media revenue to create a permanent investment vehicle.
Whether it's a great deal or a terrible one comes down to one thing we don't know yet:
**Does LSU INVEST the $100 million, or does LSU SPEND the $100 million?**
If they invest it and build a long-term revenue machine, I like it a lot.
If they blow through it paying current football expenses, they're basically borrowing from the future.
The easiest way to understand the proposed LSU deal is that LSU is **not simply selling 9% of its annual SEC TV check for $100 million.**
LSU would create a separate company that receives its SEC/ESPN broadcast revenue. An investor would put **$100 million into that company for a 9% ownership stake** and reportedly receive **7% of the company’s profits**. LSU could later sell another 11%, but would still control roughly 80% of the company.
The idea is to turn LSU’s predictable SEC TV revenue into something more like a long-term investment fund. Instead of simply receiving the SEC check every year and spending it, the new company could invest money, buy revenue-producing assets, and hopefully create additional income that isn’t dependent entirely on donations, ticket sales or TV revenue.
The $100 million for 9% also implies the new company is being valued at roughly **$1.1 billion**.
The big question is what LSU does with the $100 million.
If most of it stays in the company and gets invested, this could be a really smart move. For example, $100 million earning around 7% annually could generate roughly $7 million per year, and over time compounding could create a very large permanent revenue source for LSU athletics. LSU would still own the large majority of the company.
If LSU instead takes the $100 million and immediately spends it on things like coaching buyouts, contracts, NIL/roster costs, etc., then the deal looks much worse. In that scenario LSU would basically be giving up part of the future value of its SEC revenue to pay today’s bills.
It also apparently isn't structured like a normal loan. LSU wouldn't simply owe the investor $100 million plus interest on a set repayment date. The investor is buying equity and taking investment risk in exchange for a share of future profits and the value of his ownership stake.
So IMO the concept itself isn't necessarily LSU being desperate or "selling its TV rights." It could basically be LSU using its extremely valuable and predictable SEC media revenue to create a permanent investment vehicle.
Whether it's a great deal or a terrible one comes down to one thing we don't know yet:
**Does LSU INVEST the $100 million, or does LSU SPEND the $100 million?**
If they invest it and build a long-term revenue machine, I like it a lot.
If they blow through it paying current football expenses, they're basically borrowing from the future.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:35 am to SidewalkTiger
This is basic math.
I will help you.
LSU football has sold out season tickets for over 20 years in a row and counting.
In 2025 they sold 71,420 season ticket packages. They are required to provide visiting schools 5,000 tickets per SEC policy. That is 76,420 seats. Tiger Stadium holds 102,300. That leaves roughly 25,000 seats. So how did they sell an additional 44,000 packages - a total of 120,000 seats?
Is LSU planning on 18,000 fans sitting in each other’s laps? Or was your AD referring to the waiting list growing larger?
Common sense is all you need to answer this.
I will help you.
LSU football has sold out season tickets for over 20 years in a row and counting.
In 2025 they sold 71,420 season ticket packages. They are required to provide visiting schools 5,000 tickets per SEC policy. That is 76,420 seats. Tiger Stadium holds 102,300. That leaves roughly 25,000 seats. So how did they sell an additional 44,000 packages - a total of 120,000 seats?
Is LSU planning on 18,000 fans sitting in each other’s laps? Or was your AD referring to the waiting list growing larger?
Common sense is all you need to answer this.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:39 am to CJ786
quote:
Here you go...
The easiest way to understand the proposed LSU deal is that LSU is **not simply selling 9% of its annual SEC TV check for $100 million.**
LSU would create a separate company that receives its SEC/ESPN broadcast revenue. An investor would put **$100 million into that company for a 9% ownership stake** and reportedly receive **7% of the company’s profits**. LSU could later sell another 11%, but would still control roughly 80% of the company.
The idea is to turn LSU’s predictable SEC TV revenue into something more like a long-term investment fund. Instead of simply receiving the SEC check every year and spending it, the new company could invest money, buy revenue-producing assets, and hopefully create additional income that isn’t dependent entirely on donations, ticket sales or TV revenue.
The $100 million for 9% also implies the new company is being valued at roughly **$1.1 billion**.
The big question is what LSU does with the $100 million.
If most of it stays in the company and gets invested, this could be a really smart move. For example, $100 million earning around 7% annually could generate roughly $7 million per year, and over time compounding could create a very large permanent revenue source for LSU athletics. LSU would still own the large majority of the company.
If LSU instead takes the $100 million and immediately spends it on things like coaching buyouts, contracts, NIL/roster costs, etc., then the deal looks much worse. In that scenario LSU would basically be giving up part of the future value of its SEC revenue to pay today’s bills.
It also apparently isn't structured like a normal loan. LSU wouldn't simply owe the investor $100 million plus interest on a set repayment date. The investor is buying equity and taking investment risk in exchange for a share of future profits and the value of his ownership stake.
So IMO the concept itself isn't necessarily LSU being desperate or "selling its TV rights." It could basically be LSU using its extremely valuable and predictable SEC media revenue to create a permanent investment vehicle.
Whether it's a great deal or a terrible one comes down to one thing we don't know yet:
**Does LSU INVEST the $100 million, or does LSU SPEND the $100 million?**
If they invest it and build a long-term revenue machine, I like it a lot.
If they blow through it paying current football expenses, they're basically borrowing from the future.
I agree with you.
I would imagine, based on Ausberry's comments, they won't know exactly how much they'd need of the $100M short term until football revenue is realized. A CFP run would definitely help.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:42 am to captdalton
quote:
LSU football has sold out season tickets for over 20 years in a row and counting.
Are you sure they sold out in 2025? I don't recall that being announced but I may have missed it.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 11:48 am to BigSneezy
This is what I kinda thought was gonna happen. Although I'd try to get a large financial firm to handle the investments so obviously they'd get a small cut which at that amount both parties would win. So far the speculation sounds terrible but at this point until NIL is regulated investing seems like a better direction to foot the bill if done properly.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 12:07 pm to captdalton
all they will have to do is ask for funding from a few boosters and those buyouts are done and paid for .bks buyout was paid by one person .
Posted on 8/10/26 at 12:19 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Are you sure they sold out in 2025? I don't recall that being announced but I may have missed it.
Again this would be so easy for you to find out. You have posted here 73,000 times yet you don’t know how to search the internet. Weird.
quote:
LSU football sold out its season ticket allotment for the 2025 season, finishing with approximately 71,420 season tickets sold and a renewal rate near 98%.
Ticket Sales Breakdown
Total Sold: ~71,420 season tickets
Renewal Rate: ~98%
Status: Completely sold out allotment, contributing to a massive ongoing waiting list for Tiger Stadium
Sports Business Journal - LSU Grows Season Ticket Waiting List
Posted on 8/10/26 at 12:20 pm to Tigerpride18
quote:
all they will have to do is ask for funding from a few boosters and those buyouts are done and paid for .bks buyout was paid by one person .
Why haven’t they asked them?
Posted on 8/10/26 at 12:21 pm to captdalton
quote:
Again this would be so easy for you to find out. You have posted here 73,000 times yet you don’t know how to search the internet. Weird.
Why would I search when you'll post it anyway?
It's all about delegating tasks.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News