[82lsju]

this was discussed not too long ago here and the new Athletics Annual report on giving is now available.  You can read the report by selecting the link on this page


http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=208953761


Revenue for 2013-14 was $116.52 million

[82lsju]

this was discussed not too long ago here and the new Athletics Annual report on giving is now available.  You can read the report by selecting the link on this page


http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=208953761


Revenue for 2013-14 was $116.52 million

[Farm93]

A bit curious about the nature of the one-time endowment portion of the *** footnote.


Oregon had revenue around $118 million in that same fiscal year.
USC was apparently around $106.5 million.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/uscnow...story.html


Stanford's tally includes the revenue from the asset known as the golf course, which some don't think should count.  Every school has various quirky items in their tallies.


The golf course fees are bigger than all other gates combined, it is material to the AD budget.  Has been for decades.  And those that pay those dues used to be told their rather expensive fees supported the program, I have to believe that is still the case.
[size=78%]
[/size]
Take away the endowment and the golf course and the AD is in a world of hurt.  Real truth in that founding observation that the land would provide for the long-term viability of the university (and now the AD).


Just hope the value of the assets can keep pace with the rapidly increasing football gate at other institutions.

[Farm93]

A bit curious about the nature of the one-time endowment portion of the *** footnote.


Oregon had revenue around $118 million in that same fiscal year.
USC was apparently around $106.5 million.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/uscnow...story.html


Stanford's tally includes the revenue from the asset known as the golf course, which some don't think should count.  Every school has various quirky items in their tallies.


The golf course fees are bigger than all other gates combined, it is material to the AD budget.  Has been for decades.  And those that pay those dues used to be told their rather expensive fees supported the program, I have to believe that is still the case.
[size=78%]
[/size]
Take away the endowment and the golf course and the AD is in a world of hurt.  Real truth in that founding observation that the land would provide for the long-term viability of the university (and now the AD).


Just hope the value of the assets can keep pace with the rapidly increasing football gate at other institutions.

[terry]

Stanford's tally includes the revenue from the asset known as the golf course, which some don't think should count.

Whether the golf course income should count depends on what you're trying to measure.

If you're measuring the income of Stanford's athletic department as a whole, then the golf course income should count. So should the income paid by the university to the athletic department for P.E. classes, intramurals, and recreation programs.

If you're measuring income from Stanford's intercollegiate athletics programs, then the golf course income should not count. Little, if any, of the golf course's income is associated with intercollegiate athletics.

Endowment revenues definitely should count in Stanford's intercollegiate athletics income. I would guess that almost all of the endowment revenues are specifically earmarked for intercollegiate athletics -- varsity athlete scholarships, endowed coaching positions, etc.

When you see reported income figures for other schools, those income figures often are the income from intercollegiate athletics. Any comparison should take into account what's included in the figures.

So you need to define what you're trying to measure before you can figure out what counts and what doesn't.

[terry]

Stanford's tally includes the revenue from the asset known as the golf course, which some don't think should count.

Whether the golf course income should count depends on what you're trying to measure.

If you're measuring the income of Stanford's athletic department as a whole, then the golf course income should count. So should the income paid by the university to the athletic department for P.E. classes, intramurals, and recreation programs.

If you're measuring income from Stanford's intercollegiate athletics programs, then the golf course income should not count. Little, if any, of the golf course's income is associated with intercollegiate athletics.

Endowment revenues definitely should count in Stanford's intercollegiate athletics income. I would guess that almost all of the endowment revenues are specifically earmarked for intercollegiate athletics -- varsity athlete scholarships, endowed coaching positions, etc.

When you see reported income figures for other schools, those income figures often are the income from intercollegiate athletics. Any comparison should take into account what's included in the figures.

So you need to define what you're trying to measure before you can figure out what counts and what doesn't.

[82lsju]

and the $7.99 million for Auxiliaries is for both the golf course and equestrian and it is gross revenue not net income so the real impact of the golf course is less than $7.99 million


and yes it is bigger than the "other gate" but the "other gate" only includes men's b-ball, women's b-ball, women's volleyball and baseball[size=1em] [add men's and women's soccer per oldalum's post below] [/size]as all other sports charge no admission fees except for NCAA tournament events.

[82lsju]

and the $7.99 million for Auxiliaries is for both the golf course and equestrian and it is gross revenue not net income so the real impact of the golf course is less than $7.99 million


and yes it is bigger than the "other gate" but the "other gate" only includes men's b-ball, women's b-ball, women's volleyball and baseball[size=1em] [add men's and women's soccer per oldalum's post below] [/size]as all other sports charge no admission fees except for NCAA tournament events.

[Farm93]

Should corporate parties and wedding receptions count?
They do at a lot of ADs when they rent out their stadium.

Lots of universities rent out their athletic facilities to youth leagues in the summer. Should those count? Not really directly related to intercollegiate athletics.

The AD has assets that generate income (endowment, golf course, summer rentals of Stanford Stadium).  It uses the money obtained by those assets to support Stanford Athletics.  Clearly a golf course is not a football stadium, but at other schools a lot of football stadium revenues are not associated with intercollegiate athletics.  Michigan just lumps them all as other.


You got to know a lot of that $40 million in other would look even more quirky.  And Michigan has $15 million in debt payments, so a lot of those quirky others are probably a net burden.


http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/inde...s_uni.html

As UCB AD struggles to justify their stadium debt they often note they will be able to use the mew stadium suites for corporate events, receptions, etc.  Should UCB AD really count those revenues?  Not exactly classic Pac-10/12 football ticket gate.

That's kind of the deal with financials.  No two institutions financials will be the same.  Thankfully the Founders of the university always appreciated the value of the land.  Lots of schools probably would have sold that land a long time ago.  If the University and/or the AD did sell that land it would create inflow of proceeds that would then add significantly to the endowment.  So if it helps, think of the golf course as a financial asset, a REIT if you will, with the land use fees serving as the dividend. 


Its a revenue generating asset owned and operated by Stanford University with the intent of using a large portion of that revenue to support the Stanford AD.  In dry years that golf course balanced the AD's budget and saved lots of AD jobs that were directly supporting intercollegiate athletics.


In the end, it is not that large of a percentage anymore.  Stanford without the golf course is still #2 in Pac-12 revenue, thanks in large part to revenue from other financial assets.

[Farm93]

Should corporate parties and wedding receptions count?
They do at a lot of ADs when they rent out their stadium.

Lots of universities rent out their athletic facilities to youth leagues in the summer. Should those count? Not really directly related to intercollegiate athletics.

The AD has assets that generate income (endowment, golf course, summer rentals of Stanford Stadium).  It uses the money obtained by those assets to support Stanford Athletics.  Clearly a golf course is not a football stadium, but at other schools a lot of football stadium revenues are not associated with intercollegiate athletics.  Michigan just lumps them all as other.


You got to know a lot of that $40 million in other would look even more quirky.  And Michigan has $15 million in debt payments, so a lot of those quirky others are probably a net burden.


http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/inde...s_uni.html

As UCB AD struggles to justify their stadium debt they often note they will be able to use the mew stadium suites for corporate events, receptions, etc.  Should UCB AD really count those revenues?  Not exactly classic Pac-10/12 football ticket gate.

That's kind of the deal with financials.  No two institutions financials will be the same.  Thankfully the Founders of the university always appreciated the value of the land.  Lots of schools probably would have sold that land a long time ago.  If the University and/or the AD did sell that land it would create inflow of proceeds that would then add significantly to the endowment.  So if it helps, think of the golf course as a financial asset, a REIT if you will, with the land use fees serving as the dividend. 


Its a revenue generating asset owned and operated by Stanford University with the intent of using a large portion of that revenue to support the Stanford AD.  In dry years that golf course balanced the AD's budget and saved lots of AD jobs that were directly supporting intercollegiate athletics.


In the end, it is not that large of a percentage anymore.  Stanford without the golf course is still #2 in Pac-12 revenue, thanks in large part to revenue from other financial assets.

[Stymie]

I wouldn't assume that the golf course acounts for all the $8 million.  Knowing what I do of golf enomocis my guess is that the income is equally split between the golf and the ponies (who are notoriously expensive/lucrative to maintain).  Also, the golf/pony land is prime development land for the University (i.e. owned, flat, and contiguous to recent deveopment).  I'd guess than even in my lifetime, 1/2 of the the golf course and all of the ponies will be re-located south of Junipero Serra

[Stymie]

I wouldn't assume that the golf course acounts for all the $8 million.  Knowing what I do of golf enomocis my guess is that the income is equally split between the golf and the ponies (who are notoriously expensive/lucrative to maintain).  Also, the golf/pony land is prime development land for the University (i.e. owned, flat, and contiguous to recent deveopment).  I'd guess than even in my lifetime, 1/2 of the the golf course and all of the ponies will be re-located south of Junipero Serra

[fullmetal]

Back in the day, dues for the equestrian/polo team were about $600 or $700 per quarter.  And I believe the horses are donated.  Not sure if anything else goes into that side of the equation, but surely the dues were subsidized...

But if the golf course revenue isn't counted toward the AD, where would it better fit?  I think the golf course is inherently an AD asset, and it has to be a crown jewel of the Stanford athletic venue portfolio.

[fullmetal]

Back in the day, dues for the equestrian/polo team were about $600 or $700 per quarter.  And I believe the horses are donated.  Not sure if anything else goes into that side of the equation, but surely the dues were subsidized...

But if the golf course revenue isn't counted toward the AD, where would it better fit?  I think the golf course is inherently an AD asset, and it has to be a crown jewel of the Stanford athletic venue portfolio.

[yvonne]

and the $7.99 million for Auxiliaries is for both the golf course and equestrian and it is gross revenue not net income so the real impact of the golf course is less than $7.99 million


and yes it is bigger than the "other gate" but the "other gate" only includes men's b-ball, women's b-ball, women's volleyball and baseball as all other sports charge no admission fees except for NCAA tournament events.

The Stanford Invitational had an entry fee, and the Jordan Invitational probably did, as well.

[yvonne]

and the $7.99 million for Auxiliaries is for both the golf course and equestrian and it is gross revenue not net income so the real impact of the golf course is less than $7.99 million


and yes it is bigger than the "other gate" but the "other gate" only includes men's b-ball, women's b-ball, women's volleyball and baseball as all other sports charge no admission fees except for NCAA tournament events.

The Stanford Invitational had an entry fee, and the Jordan Invitational probably did, as well.

[terry]

if the golf course revenue isn't counted toward the AD, where would it better fit?  I think the golf course is inherently an AD asset

I agree that golf course revenue is properly counted as athletic department revenue. I also agree that the golf course is an asset that can contribute its profits toward financing Stanford's athletic department.

If one were trying to measure Stanford's revenue from its intercollegiate athletics programs, I think most of the golf course revenue should not be counted. Very little, if any, golf course revenue comes from intercollegiate athletics.

As others have noted, the $7.99 million in revenue from the golf course and stables is a gross figure. The net income after deducting expenses would be less.

[terry]

if the golf course revenue isn't counted toward the AD, where would it better fit?  I think the golf course is inherently an AD asset

I agree that golf course revenue is properly counted as athletic department revenue. I also agree that the golf course is an asset that can contribute its profits toward financing Stanford's athletic department.

If one were trying to measure Stanford's revenue from its intercollegiate athletics programs, I think most of the golf course revenue should not be counted. Very little, if any, golf course revenue comes from intercollegiate athletics.

As others have noted, the $7.99 million in revenue from the golf course and stables is a gross figure. The net income after deducting expenses would be less.

[CornFed]

Isn't this whole discussion involved in semantics?  With regard to intercollegiate athletics' revenues, the golf course contributes very little.  With regards to funding intercollegiate athletics, the golf course is an important source of funds.  Perhaps I don't understand the implications of these differences in terms of ranking schools athletic departments.  Notwithstanding someone's previous comments, I do not believe the funding provided by the golf course is going to go away any time soon.

[CornFed]

Isn't this whole discussion involved in semantics?  With regard to intercollegiate athletics' revenues, the golf course contributes very little.  With regards to funding intercollegiate athletics, the golf course is an important source of funds.  Perhaps I don't understand the implications of these differences in terms of ranking schools athletic departments.  Notwithstanding someone's previous comments, I do not believe the funding provided by the golf course is going to go away any time soon.

[stupac2]

Isn't this whole discussion involved in semantics?

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here.

[stupac2]

Isn't this whole discussion involved in semantics?

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here.

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=12160.msg118794#msg118794 date=1432237325]Isn't this whole discussion involved in semantics?

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here.
[/quote]

OK.  I figured that was coming.  :)

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=12160.msg118794#msg118794 date=1432237325]Isn't this whole discussion involved in semantics?

Welcome to the internet, you must be new here.
[/quote]

OK.  I figured that was coming.  :)

[Farm93]

The economics of golf courses over the last 5-7 years has been horrible, but over the last 40 years probably only the football gate and the endowment have provided more top line and bottom line power.  TV revenue racing ahead is a recent thing.  Unfortunately, unlike golf proceeds, the rest of the conference also gets TV revenue, so it is not a competitive advantage like the golf course.

It is ironic to me that the endowment should count, but the land, the most critical part of the original Founding Grant, would not?  That seems so wrong since the land was the ultimate gift by the Founders.  Stanford AD has only a few competitive advantages (ideal climate for athletics, loyal wealthy alums, land for facilities).

Safe to say most schools would adore a chunk of land that could generate $8 million and cost a fraction of that to operate since golf course maintenance is not that much.  Course revenue, unlike a football gate, would not need to be shared with the visiting school, or require security, ushers, ticket takers, parking attendants, police, traffic managers, etc. etc.  It is a very efficient revenue source.

And most importantly, other schools put it in the same place.  tOSU actually has their budget online (2011 linked below)  tOSU, like Stanford, is blessed with a top 10 golf course.  Their budget INCLUDES "Golf Course" revenue at $4 million which apparently is about equivalent to another classic intercollegiate revenue category, sports camp revenues.  Their golf course revenues exceed many other noteworthy classic categories (combined gate for all sports other than football & basketball, merchandising).

Michigan counts their golf course too.  Or at least they did in FY2013.  Revenues $1.7 million (place is frozen a lot of the year), expenses $1.6 million.  Michigan also counts other facility rentals in their budget too as that year the NHL winter classic that year brought in 2.85 million.

Again, quirks are everywhere, but the only quirk about Stanford's golf course is that it makes so much more money than other university golf courses.  Stanford's apples are just bigger and more valuable, but even football factories with meaningful golf course revenue place their golf course revenues in their AD revenue lines.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...epartment/

http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-content/...al-v.2.pdf

[Farm93]

The economics of golf courses over the last 5-7 years has been horrible, but over the last 40 years probably only the football gate and the endowment have provided more top line and bottom line power.  TV revenue racing ahead is a recent thing.  Unfortunately, unlike golf proceeds, the rest of the conference also gets TV revenue, so it is not a competitive advantage like the golf course.

It is ironic to me that the endowment should count, but the land, the most critical part of the original Founding Grant, would not?  That seems so wrong since the land was the ultimate gift by the Founders.  Stanford AD has only a few competitive advantages (ideal climate for athletics, loyal wealthy alums, land for facilities).

Safe to say most schools would adore a chunk of land that could generate $8 million and cost a fraction of that to operate since golf course maintenance is not that much.  Course revenue, unlike a football gate, would not need to be shared with the visiting school, or require security, ushers, ticket takers, parking attendants, police, traffic managers, etc. etc.  It is a very efficient revenue source.

And most importantly, other schools put it in the same place.  tOSU actually has their budget online (2011 linked below)  tOSU, like Stanford, is blessed with a top 10 golf course.  Their budget INCLUDES "Golf Course" revenue at $4 million which apparently is about equivalent to another classic intercollegiate revenue category, sports camp revenues.  Their golf course revenues exceed many other noteworthy classic categories (combined gate for all sports other than football & basketball, merchandising).

Michigan counts their golf course too.  Or at least they did in FY2013.  Revenues $1.7 million (place is frozen a lot of the year), expenses $1.6 million.  Michigan also counts other facility rentals in their budget too as that year the NHL winter classic that year brought in 2.85 million.

Again, quirks are everywhere, but the only quirk about Stanford's golf course is that it makes so much more money than other university golf courses.  Stanford's apples are just bigger and more valuable, but even football factories with meaningful golf course revenue place their golf course revenues in their AD revenue lines.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...epartment/

http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-content/...al-v.2.pdf

[terry]

It is ironic to me that the endowment should count, but the land, the most critical part of the original Founding Grant, would not? 

The athletic department's endowment income comes largely from gifts that were designated specifically for intercollegiate sports. Donors have given funds to endow hundreds of athletic scholarships and a number of varsity coaching positions. The income that comes from these endowment funds is required to spent for the designated purposes. This income therefore is directly related to varsity sports. It was donated specifically for that purpose.

That is not true of the golf course. The land was part of the Founding Grant. That land is available for general university purposes. The university chooses to use it as a golf course under the supervision of the athletic department. The university allows the athletic department to use the profits for general athletic department operations. Golf course profits therefore are available to subsidize varsity sports, if the athletic department so chooses. But that money was not generated in connection with varsity sports.

So, whether golf course income "counts" depends on what question you're asking. If you're trying to figure out how much money the athletic department has available to spend on varsity sports, golf course profits count. But if you're trying to figure out how much revenue the athletic department receives in connection with its varsity sports programs, golf course profits should not count. I think both questions are interesting for different reasons.

[terry]

It is ironic to me that the endowment should count, but the land, the most critical part of the original Founding Grant, would not? 

The athletic department's endowment income comes largely from gifts that were designated specifically for intercollegiate sports. Donors have given funds to endow hundreds of athletic scholarships and a number of varsity coaching positions. The income that comes from these endowment funds is required to spent for the designated purposes. This income therefore is directly related to varsity sports. It was donated specifically for that purpose.

That is not true of the golf course. The land was part of the Founding Grant. That land is available for general university purposes. The university chooses to use it as a golf course under the supervision of the athletic department. The university allows the athletic department to use the profits for general athletic department operations. Golf course profits therefore are available to subsidize varsity sports, if the athletic department so chooses. But that money was not generated in connection with varsity sports.

So, whether golf course income "counts" depends on what question you're asking. If you're trying to figure out how much money the athletic department has available to spend on varsity sports, golf course profits count. But if you're trying to figure out how much revenue the athletic department receives in connection with its varsity sports programs, golf course profits should not count. I think both questions are interesting for different reasons.

[CornFed]

" golf course maintenance is not that much "

Compared to what?  The casual manner in which this is stated suggests to me that you might be underestimating costs.  It is actually quite labor intensive, especially for a high-end course such as that at our alma mater.

[CornFed]

" golf course maintenance is not that much "

Compared to what?  The casual manner in which this is stated suggests to me that you might be underestimating costs.  It is actually quite labor intensive, especially for a high-end course such as that at our alma mater.

[82lsju]

[font=Georgia]Think Playing Golf Is Tough? Try Operating A Course
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/20...t-margins/

[82lsju]

[font=Georgia]Think Playing Golf Is Tough? Try Operating A Course
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/20...t-margins/

[Farm93]

The last five years have been tough for golf, but that is part of any boom bust cycle.  There are too many golf courses right now because golf courses were very good back when Tiger was winning majors.

Inefficient revenue or not.  True sport or not.  The reality is the Stanford golf course for 85 years has been a major part of DAPER's operations and its revenue deserves to be in the top line.  In fact, there really is no other home for the facility's revenues.  Could you imagine the Title IX lawsuit if Stanford only had a men's team, but decided to slide the golf course facility and its operating budget into another department?

Not every school has their own football stadium, but that does not mean schools that have one should not include ancillary facility revenue from those facilities.

tOSU includes kid camper revenue in their revenues.  Michigan has facilities, built by debt, that they concede are bleeding cash.  And yet, the corporate rentals of those facilities also sit in their top line. Golf is far from the most quirky item in their revenue tallies.  Golf is certainly not the least efficient revenue source for those schools, not that this is the standard for revenue inclusion.

I don't even play the game, but I am confident over 85 years golf and that sport's facility course have done far more for DAPER finances than almost any sport not named football.  It might very well be the biggest revenue contributing facility over that time other than the football stadium. 

Haters gonna hate I guess, but those in the AD know the golf course is important and that is one of the big reasons it is not commonly lumped into "other" like it is in most other big time programs.  But importantly even in those programs the golf course revenue does appear to sit in the revenue line.  It is just uncommon for it to be big enough to not be "other" and if it makes some feel better to think it is inefficient just one question.


Have you ever seen anyone from the university with access to the financials ask DAPER to close the golf course to save money? Or even demand that DAPER charge students much higher use fees for their access to a money draining luxury enjoyed by only a few students?


I don't think I have ever seen either type of claim.  Yet both should be common if it was really a money loser. 

[Farm93]

The last five years have been tough for golf, but that is part of any boom bust cycle.  There are too many golf courses right now because golf courses were very good back when Tiger was winning majors.

Inefficient revenue or not.  True sport or not.  The reality is the Stanford golf course for 85 years has been a major part of DAPER's operations and its revenue deserves to be in the top line.  In fact, there really is no other home for the facility's revenues.  Could you imagine the Title IX lawsuit if Stanford only had a men's team, but decided to slide the golf course facility and its operating budget into another department?

Not every school has their own football stadium, but that does not mean schools that have one should not include ancillary facility revenue from those facilities.

tOSU includes kid camper revenue in their revenues.  Michigan has facilities, built by debt, that they concede are bleeding cash.  And yet, the corporate rentals of those facilities also sit in their top line. Golf is far from the most quirky item in their revenue tallies.  Golf is certainly not the least efficient revenue source for those schools, not that this is the standard for revenue inclusion.

I don't even play the game, but I am confident over 85 years golf and that sport's facility course have done far more for DAPER finances than almost any sport not named football.  It might very well be the biggest revenue contributing facility over that time other than the football stadium. 

Haters gonna hate I guess, but those in the AD know the golf course is important and that is one of the big reasons it is not commonly lumped into "other" like it is in most other big time programs.  But importantly even in those programs the golf course revenue does appear to sit in the revenue line.  It is just uncommon for it to be big enough to not be "other" and if it makes some feel better to think it is inefficient just one question.


Have you ever seen anyone from the university with access to the financials ask DAPER to close the golf course to save money? Or even demand that DAPER charge students much higher use fees for their access to a money draining luxury enjoyed by only a few students?


I don't think I have ever seen either type of claim.  Yet both should be common if it was really a money loser. 

[oldalum]

and yes it is bigger than the "other gate" but the "other gate" only includes men's b-ball, women's b-ball, women's volleyball and baseball as all other sports charge no admission fees except for NCAA tournament events.

Also, both soccer teams charge admission fees.

[oldalum]

and yes it is bigger than the "other gate" but the "other gate" only includes men's b-ball, women's b-ball, women's volleyball and baseball as all other sports charge no admission fees except for NCAA tournament events.

Also, both soccer teams charge admission fees.

[BostonCard]

"Haters gonna hate"? This is a discussion of accounting entries. Maybe if this were a biz-school board there would be some haters hating, but even then, we'd probably need a cash vs. accrual subplot to get things going.

Thank you.  I think we've gone through the back and forth on this one enough times that I'm just waiting for Godwin's law to take hold.

BC

[BostonCard]

"Haters gonna hate"? This is a discussion of accounting entries. Maybe if this were a biz-school board there would be some haters hating, but even then, we'd probably need a cash vs. accrual subplot to get things going.

Thank you.  I think we've gone through the back and forth on this one enough times that I'm just waiting for Godwin's law to take hold.

BC

[CornFed]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=12160.msg118864#msg118864 date=1432328711]
"Haters gonna hate"? This is a discussion of accounting entries. Maybe if this were a biz-school board there would be some haters hating, but even then, we'd probably need a cash vs. accrual subplot to get things going.

Thank you.  I think we've gone through the back and forth on this one enough times that I'm just waiting for Godwin's law to take hold.

BC
[/quote]

So are you going to mention the required topic to put this thread to rest?

[CornFed]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=12160.msg118864#msg118864 date=1432328711]
"Haters gonna hate"? This is a discussion of accounting entries. Maybe if this were a biz-school board there would be some haters hating, but even then, we'd probably need a cash vs. accrual subplot to get things going.

Thank you.  I think we've gone through the back and forth on this one enough times that I'm just waiting for Godwin's law to take hold.

BC
[/quote]

So are you going to mention the required topic to put this thread to rest?