ADVERTISEMENT

New UK Athletlic Budgets

Can you UK adopt USM?

I do think you guys will shake-up the SEC over the next 5 years...
 
The FB/BB operating costs as equal excludes scholarship costs - a separate segment of that budget - & hoops' teams do make way more trips.
 
Wow from 2015--even Dukes football expenses were greater than basketball

Duke's total expenses for men's basketball was $19,860,851, for women's basketball $5,511,458 and for football $22,915,934.

Duke's total revenue for men's basketball was $33,772,145, for women's basketball $3,194,313 and for football $32,407,399.
 
Some of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.

Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.

Wow from 2015--even Dukes football expenses were greater than basketball

Duke's total expenses for men's basketball was $19,860,851, for women's basketball $5,511,458 and for football $22,915,934.

Duke's total revenue for men's basketball was $33,772,145, for women's basketball $3,194,313 and for football $32,407,399.

And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.

Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of construction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EastLansingCat
I like the fact we give 4.1% of our budget to academics whereas that streetcar school at central and Floyd gouges their students out of three plus million in sports fees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDHoss and jauk11
Some of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.

Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.



And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.

Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of construction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.
Your first paragraph supports the notion that football budget should far exceed basketball
 
  • Like
Reactions: CB3UK and jauk11
The FB/BB operating costs as equal excludes scholarship costs - a separate segment of that budget - & hoops' teams do make way more trips.

And all of our scholarship athletes pay the full price of out of state tuition, etc, it isn't like having ten four stars from Ohio adds anything to football revenue and the way UK is viewed by the outside world. Getting five stars from out of state adds a lot to basketball revenue, but it wouldn't do anything for the second rated sport at UK, right?

Hoops teams do make many more trips, probably about three times as many-------with probably less than a fourth of the players and coaches, trainers, etc.
 
As another poster alluded to, separating out total scholarships as a separate category leads to misleading numbers. Football (with now 60 (plus) out-of-state schollies) would tip the balance clearly to football.

It is as though this breakdown were made in this particular fashion to tamp down criticism that football was costing millions more than basketball . . . . and it is, given the scholly numbers involved.
 
Some of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.

Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.



And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.

Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of cons
ruction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.


When is this pie from, if not recent then just more verification of how badly football was supported in the past, which is what I pointed out with the thread posting the most recent athletics budgets and comparing it to the budget circa 2010.

If this data is not very recent data, (ie before the strike) I have been pointing out the discrepancy for years, my recent data showed much more emphasis on football-------and we see the results. Everyone that was paying attention knows that mitch was starving the money cow for over a decade AND losing literally millions of dollars in the process, AND also know that with all the money rolling in AND the loss of TWENTY THOUSAND season ticket holders he had NO option but to correct his penny wise but dollar foolish policies toward football.

If more recent than the budget I showed then a very sad (and stupid) regression in policies. With continued monetary support and the talent we are bringing in with Stoops troops AND decent support (Bama would laugh at our support, does their football program clear more than ours?), JMO but I think we are on the threshold of great improvement on the field AND financially with football------and things would have gotten worse instead of better if some of the bean counters hadn't been rudely awakened.
 
As another poster alluded to, separating out total scholarships as a separate category leads to misleading numbers. Football (with now 60 (plus) out-of-state schollies) would tip the balance clearly to football.

It is as though this breakdown were made in this particular fashion to tamp down criticism that football was costing millions more than basketball . . . . and it is, given the scholly numbers involved.

And those 60 plus out of state football scholarships paying full out of state tuition etc (pretty high IMO) adds a lot of money to UK's academic budget also, just my guess.
 
Some of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.

Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.



And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.

Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of construction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.
No one's hysterical, but common business sense looking at the above link from the 2010-11 school year shows that football should CLEARLY dwarf the basketball budget if you're trying to run things intelligently.

The 2010-11 UK football team was Joker's 6-7 (2-6) squad that embarassed itself against a coachless Pitt squad. They brought in $20 million in profit. Not bad for a team the university had been hardly supporting when compared to the rest of the SEC. Meanwhile the Brandon Knight led basketball team, which made it to the Final 4 and lost to UConn, only made $6 million. Alabama brought in $23 million solely from its BCS game v Notre Dame, and that number has obviously gone higher with the new playoff format.

If we were making $20 million not even trying, and only $6 million in a sport we pour everything behind the scenes into.....it doesn't take a neurosurgeon to see how much more we could make if we legitimately tried like the SEC


All that being said, obviously, we finally are putting our financial priorities in order.
 
No one's hysterical, but common business sense looking at the above link from the 2010-11 school year shows that football should CLEARLY dwarf the basketball budget if you're trying to run things intelligently.

The 2010-11 UK football team was Joker's 6-7 (2-6) squad that embarassed itself against a coachless Pitt squad. They brought in $20 million in profit. Not bad for a team the university had been hardly supporting when compared to the rest of the SEC. Meanwhile the Brandon Knight led basketball team, which made it to the Final 4 and lost to UConn, only made $6 million. Alabama brought in $23 million solely from its BCS game v Notre Dame, and thst number is obviously gone higher with the new playoff.

If we were making $20 million not even trying, and only $6 million in a sport we pour everything behind the scenes into.....it doesn't take a neurosurgeon to see how much more we could make if we legitimately tried like the SEC


All that being said, obviously, we finally are putting our financial priorities in order.

Exactly right.

And that $23 million dollars Bama brought in (brings in almost every year, if not some other SEC football team) is split equally among all the SEC teams-------including UK that didn't contribute one dime in bowl money for five straight years. And actually UK probably saved money by not going to a lesser bowl most years. Meanwhile the NCAA keeps most of the profit from the NCAA tourney, which is the only time of the year basketball fans really get rabid, while football is big time all year------AND football is almost the only reason for the huge payouts by the SEC network.

It makes you wonder why we were paying the big bucks to the people that manage the money when any logical fan can follow your argument-------and then it took a huge windfall of money (again, mostly from other SEC teams FOOTBALL) AND the loss of TWENTY THOUSAND season ticket holders to right the ship.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ram1955
is split equally among all the SEC teams-----

While I agree with the gist, here, it ain't COMPLETELY equal, as I recall.

Each bowl/playoff payout is split into 15 pieces, with the direct participant receiving 2/15th's, and the other 13 schools getting 1/15th. This formula gives the higher payout participants like a 10% or 15% advantage on the total payout formula . . . . some incentive to be the best, without raping Texas style the rest of the conference.

I just hope that the Bama's, Texas's, Ohio States of the world do not opt for a "Super Conference" without reference to geography and tradition.
 
I don't know how that works but I have read that some teams to the lesser bowls spend more on expenses than they take in. I think they try to reward a lot of players and fans. Anyway, getting two fifteenths of the money you were responsible for doesn't sound that excessive to me.

And I agree that a "Super Conference" would be a disaster for most teams, including UK. I think UK fans should boycott such a conference, even watching it on TV, our losses to those teams is what made them what they are, lol.
 
The pie chart shown in first post is new - this year.

Then it is bad news IMO, they spent about the same on both programs in 2010 when we were going downhill fast and the budget figures I found from last year showed a pretty substantial increase in spending on football compared to basketball.

But of course we do have some substantial improvements, no longer using the old joke of a "recruiting room" that Brooks and Joker plus were saddled with for almost two decades.
 
Some of you guys are hysterical. I haven't seen one single person complain about the new stadium and practice facility, the number of camps we have at UK, the amount of time our coaches spend on the recruiting trail, the distance that our coaches go to recruit guys, the equipment our team uses, and the frequency in which our team gets new equipment/uniforms.

Yet, they see that they have as much allocated to football as the basketball program, and suddenly, it's a problem, for no other reason than because our football program financing doesn't dwarf the basketball program financing like much of the rest of the SEC.



And Kentucky's revenue, expenses, and income from athletics all far exceeds Duke's.
Comparing SEC and ACC schools, or any other conference's schools, for that matter, is apples to oranges. The SEC Network completely changed the financial landscape, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per school.

Also what is failed being mentioned, the amount of construction and money that we're putting into the rest of the school, academic and athletic.

Not sure I see which side of the fence you're on. Let's make it easy. It's absolutely ludicrous to see basketball funding at or even near the level of Football funding. Football funding should dwarf funding of all other sports put together, for without it, it's likely there would be few of those other sports.
 
It's absolutely ludicrous to see basketball funding at or even near the level of Football funding. Football funding should dwarf funding of all other sports put together, for without it, it's likely there would be few of those other sports.
When saying they are equal, you're ignoring a) the scholarship slice which has to be largely football & b) the science building transfer slice which, while it's existence galls me to no end, allowed the football facilities improvements (along with new baseball facilities.). Net, all in all, the FB slice is noticeably larger than men's hoops - if you bother to study the chart. You can't have all the sports we have & at the same time have football "dwarf" everything else. If you think FB should be the only sport UK has, then OK with your position.
 
Rather than saying we need more money in the football budget, I would ask what if any, are the needs that we have currently that have not been funded? The football program appears to me to be in better financial shape then at any time in my 40 years of following.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDHoss
This is a case of people getting all worked up because they don't understand what they are reading. Scholarships make up 12.4% and there are 6 times more football schollies than basketball. Facilities and Operations is 10% and the vast majority of the facilities are football related. Debt service is 6.9% and once again most of the debt was accumulated to upgrade the football stadium and to build a new practice facility. All and all I would say they are spending twice as much on football as they are basketball. Furthermore, if you look at what the two programs are bringing in(you can't count the SEC money - it is coming regardless of our FB success), we are probably getting a better ROI on the basketball expenditures. Don't get me wrong. I want as much money spent on football as it takes to compete and win in the SEC but the arguments here in this thread are way off base.
 
Wow from 2015--even Dukes football expenses were greater than basketball

Duke's total expenses for men's basketball was $19,860,851, for women's basketball $5,511,458 and for football $22,915,934.

Duke's total revenue for men's basketball was $33,772,145, for women's basketball $3,194,313 and for football $32,407,399.
I can all but guarantee you that these expenses include scholarships, which the UK numbers do not. No way Duke spends more money in football than half the SEC.
 
Just so we are all clear here and not using random links, here is a comparison of budgets from the UK annual report during Stoops tenure (FY17 numbers have not been released yet). Again, these do not include any scholarships, facility operations or debt payments on facilities:

2013 - 2014 Operating Expenses
Football - $13 million
Basketball - $16.5 million

2014 - 2015 Operating Expenses
Football - $15.2 million
Basketball - $17.2 million

2015 - 2016 Operating Expenses
Football - $17.8 million
Basketball - $17.8 million

It will be interesting to see what the numbers from this past year will be. The increase in football money was obviously much needed. Almost a $5 million increase since Stoops arrived. A move in the right direction and a direction that needs to continue.
 
Someone tell me this, how do you justify a recruiting budget around 2010 just over $300k for football for say 27 or 28 football commits when the basketball recruiting budget was over $500k at the time for 5 or 6 commits? When UK's basketball facilities etc were so good that Cal was turning down FIVE STARS while football finally got its first one this century, a home grown loyal one, and UK hadn't been averaging one FOUR star a year this century before Stoops. And when they did get a prospect on campus they had to take him to the "recruiting room" to make liars of the coaches that were telling them UK was serious about football-------except for our best recruiter of course, Tee admitted he just lied to them about our facilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pulaski Cat Fan
Someone tell me this, how do you justify a recruiting budget around 2010 just over $300k for football for say 27 or 28 football commits when the basketball recruiting budget was over $500k at the time for 5 or 6 commits? When UK's basketball facilities etc were so good that Cal was turning down FIVE STARS while football finally got its first one this century, a home grown loyal one, and UK hadn't been averaging one FOUR star a year this century before Stoops. And when they did get a prospect on campus they had to take him to the "recruiting room" to make liars of the coaches that were telling them UK was serious about football-------except for our best recruiter of course, Tee admitted he just lied to them about our facilities.
7 years ago Jauk. Why keep rehashing this? We are in a spot right now to compete in all aspects.
 
When saying they are equal, you're ignoring a) the scholarship slice which has to be largely football & b) the science building transfer slice which, while it's existence galls me to no end, allowed the football facilities improvements (along with new baseball facilities.). Net, all in all, the FB slice is noticeably larger than men's hoops - if you bother to study the chart. You can't have all the sports we have & at the same time have football "dwarf" everything else. If you think FB should be the only sport UK has, then OK with your position.
Show me a similar breakdown at other SEC schools? All this shows is scholarships as a whole. How many total schollies are there total? Are some of higher dollar value?
 
If you think FB should be the only sport UK has, then OK with your position.

1. It wouldn't bother me if it was the only sport, but I know it won't be. Don't get me wrong; I do enjoy men's bball once the tournament starts.
2. To simplify the whole Football funding issue....How does the total expenditure number (whatever it may be) for Football at UK compare with the total expenditure number for Football at a school like Alabama? For me that's the issue. We have good facilities, etc...but are we on the same level funding wise as a real Football school? IMO, that should be the goal. After that, as far as I'm concerned, they can spend the rest of the money any way they see fit.
 
2. To simplify the whole Football funding issue....How does the total expenditure number (whatever it may be) for Football at UK compare with the total expenditure number for Football at a school like Alabama? For me that's the issue. We have good facilities, etc...but are we on the same level funding wise as a real Football school? IMO, that should be the goal. After that, as far as I'm concerned, they can spend the rest of the money any way they see fit.
I have no numbers for other schools and if I had them, I wouldn't know how to a assure an apples-to-apples comparison when monies at varies schools are counted in different ways & go to different things such as funding a science building. I'm not a CPA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deeeefense
I have no numbers for other schools and if I had them, I wouldn't know how to a assure an apples-to-apples comparison when monies at varies schools are counted in different ways & go to different things such as funding a science building. I'm not a CPA.
All u need is an income statement w a breakdown by sport for each school
 
Show me a similar breakdown at other SEC schools? All this shows is scholarships as a whole. How many total schollies are there total? Are some of higher dollar value?
Not sure entirely what you're asking, but will try to answer the question.

Each sport is allotted a certain amount of scholarships per NCAA rules. Most sports award partial scholarships. The only sports that are not allowed to give partial scholarships are football, men's and women's basketball, women's gymnastics, women's tennis and women's volleyball. All other sports break their available scholarship dollars up. Baseball as an example, has a limit of 11.7 scholarships for the entire roster, so very few get full rides, most get partial scholarships and some get nothing.

The amount of scholarships awarded per sport are the same for every school across the SEC. As far as overall amount awarded in scholarship money, some school have more sports than others and some schools are more expensive than others, so you're never going to have an apples to apples comparison.
 
Just so we are all clear here and not using random links, here is a comparison of budgets from the UK annual report during Stoops tenure (FY17 numbers have not been released yet). Again, these do not include any scholarships, facility operations or debt payments on facilities:

2013 - 2014 Operating Expenses
Football - $13 million
Basketball - $16.5 million

2014 - 2015 Operating Expenses
Football - $15.2 million
Basketball - $17.2 million

2015 - 2016 Operating Expenses
Football - $17.8 million
Basketball - $17.8 million

It will be interesting to see what the numbers from this past year will be. The increase in football money was obviously much needed. Almost a $5 million increase since Stoops arrived. A move in the right direction and a direction that needs to continue.

Good post. I would be interested in seeing the revenue numbers alongside expenses. My gut feeling is the ROI on football is trending higher. IOW spending money on football is turning out to be a wise use of resources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jauk11
Good post. I would be interested in seeing the revenue numbers alongside expenses. My gut feeling is the ROI on football is trending higher. IOW spending money on football is turning out to be a wise use of resources.
Your wish is my command.

2013 - 2014 Revenue
Football - $31.8 million
Basketball - $22.5 million

2014 - 2015 Revenue
Football - $35.2 million
Basketball - $25.1 million

2015 - 2016 Revenue
Football - $36.1 million
Basketball - $26.1 million

Football revenue has increased by $4.3 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $4.8 million over the last 3 years.
Basketball revenue has increased by $3.6 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $1.3 million over the last 3 years.

Another move in the right direction.
 
7 years ago Jauk. Why keep rehashing this? We are in a spot right now to compete in all aspects.

Because it takes a long time to rebuild a program that was run into the dirt-------and TWO consecutive seasons when you lose to BOTH instate schools, do NOT win one SEC game, and have two wins over what no one should argue were gimmes------below the dirt for an SEC school really. The rebuilding should have started in 2007 at the latest, we would have a winning program now and possibly the favorite for the SEC east if the right things had been done before our program was run into the dirt.

mitch hired Joker, what choice did he have when a prospective coach that he didn't put a blindfold on would have seen the "recruiting room" that was just an unbelievable turnoff to any prospect------coach or player------and the disgusting picture of that unbelievable abomination was readily available to any coach recruiting against us. That was an unbelievable story on its own, but just an indication of what our athletic department thought of football, minimum maintenance and take the SEC money and run to invest in the minor sports. When more money invested in football would have meant a lot MORE money for the minor sports in the long run. How many other football programs do you know of that lost TWENTY THOUSAND season ticket holders from a fan base that AVERAGED capacity for a full year-------with a team with a losing SEC record-------in a stadium that held about 7,000 more fans than it does now.

Yes, we are in a good spot now, thanks to Stoops selling himself AND his plan, and having Marrow as his ace in the hole. And really what choice did athletics have but to throw money at the money cow that was losing millions in revenue because of the penny wise pound policies in effect for mitch's long reign here------tons of money suddenly available, a lot from a stupid bargain with the state assembly (stupid from an athletics standpoint, good for the University, so I don't feel that bad about it) where the athletic department that couldn't afford to put carpet on the floor of the "recruiting room" or replace the folding chairs obligated itself for another $100,000,000 or so in order to do what should have been done years before. Then how much more would the "naming rights" etc deals have been worth with a football program going bowling vs the one that barely managed to win two OOC games?

THAT is my problem, UK should have started all this in 07 when we had a football team, before the rebuilding job had to start off CONSECUTIVE TWO (OOC) win seasons. There was NO excuse for management to not look around and say, hey, football looks like a better investment than the rifle team.

UK has TONS more talent than we had in 07, a great offense put together by Brooks (AND Joker) that had ONE four star, NO 5.7s, ONE 5.6, TWO 5.5s, and a starting OL that AVERAGED below a 5.2 as recruits. We averaged LESS than ONE four star commit this century before Stoops AND spending some money on football, how many do we have now that the money started flowing? We sold out in 07, we are TWENTY THOUSAND season ticket holders short of that talent starved team when we undoubtedly have the most EXPERIENCED talent that we have had since Curci cheated, and possibly the most EVER.

And part of that is in large part to mitch's arrogant and stupid remarks, which he refused to apologize for, which is still costing us a lot of season ticket holders. And I personally still think his spending $156,000 to hang some pictures on a wall somewhere was his way of saying to football fans that he is in charge and can spend the money the way he wants to, get lost. And about TWENTY THOUSAND of them did get lost, a lot of them for good.

NO argument, UK football is in a good place, no doubt losing 20,000,000 season ticket holders got the attention of the bean counters above mitch.

My problem is that while we are in a great and improving place now we lost five or six valuable years and went through hell as football fans before any substantial moves were made in a no brainer situation.

Thanks to the other SEC schools that bailed us out money wise because their ADs didn't fall asleep at the wheel.

And why is it that NO ONE disputes my disgusting facts, just say oh, we are doing well now, why talk about the football program AND its fans going through all that unnecessary hell.

OK, you got me, maybe we only lost 19,995 season ticket holders, do you know of another program that lost that many? Oregon has had a precipitous decline in fortunes on the field, how many season ticket holders have you lost?

You guys can make mitch your hero all you want, the FACTS will prevent him from ever being my hero.
`
 
Your wish is my command.

2013 - 2014 Revenue
Football - $31.8 million
Basketball - $22.5 million

2014 - 2015 Revenue
Football - $35.2 million
Basketball - $25.1 million

2015 - 2016 Revenue
Football - $36.1 million
Basketball - $26.1 million

Football revenue has increased by $4.3 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $4.8 million over the last 3 years.
Basketball revenue has increased by $3.6 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $1.3 million over the last 3 years.

Another move in the right direction.

Thanks, but those "increases" are over TWO consecutive seasons where UK football managed to win only TWO OOC gimmes, NO SEC wins, and losses to BOTH of the other in state teams. And when the fans were in open revolt.
 
Your wish is my command.

2013 - 2014 Revenue
Football - $31.8 million
Basketball - $22.5 million

2014 - 2015 Revenue
Football - $35.2 million
Basketball - $25.1 million

2015 - 2016 Revenue
Football - $36.1 million
Basketball - $26.1 million

Football revenue has increased by $4.3 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $4.8 million over the last 3 years.
Basketball revenue has increased by $3.6 million and their Operating Expense Budget has increased by $1.3 million over the last 3 years.

Another move in the right direction.

Priorities.

How do the 20,000 season ticket holders we lost figure into the numbers, just not important compared to a couple hundred thousand to replace the folding chairs, the bare concrete with carpet, the folding screen, some walls so you could fool recruits into not seeing that the "recruiting room" (better known as the turnoff by recruits) was just a corner of a warehouse somewhere. Of course the normal person could have made the improvements with $50,000 (a lot less than mitch's raise about 07) but then we know how efficient the gummint is, so figure four times as much. The $156,000 to hang some pictures on a wall somewhere would have done some amazing things.

But no, those folding chairs cost money, need to use them for 15 years or more to get your moneys worth.

Talk about penny wise and pound foolish, one of many examples.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT