|
Post by fanhood on Jul 18, 2017 18:51:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by naztec on Jul 18, 2017 19:11:10 GMT -8
So I'm just trying to follow along here. Do you think that a professional sports league should determine the awarding of an expansion franchise according to the whims of a mountain west football team whose administration has demonstrated clear ineptitude and sell them a franchise below what the league can command at market value? I'm not really sure what your actual argument is, other than MLS isn't legitimate. Although the premise of this thread is that MLS IS legitimate, but FSI is a failing candidate for this legitimate league.
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 18, 2017 20:21:45 GMT -8
So I'm just trying to follow along here. Do you think that a professional sports league should determine the awarding of an expansion franchise according to the whims of a mountain west football team whose administration has demonstrated clear ineptitude and sell them a franchise below what the league can command at market value? I'm not really sure what your actual argument is, other than MLS isn't legitimate. Although the premise of this thread is that MLS IS legitimate, but FSI is a failing candidate for this legitimate league. I actually think that the MLS is a legitimate league and could be a Top 10 worldwide league by 2025 or 2030... but not today... 1. Premiership 2. La Liga 3. Bundasliga 4. Serbia A 5. Ligue 1 6. Campeanato Brasileiro 7. Russian Premier League 8. EFL 9. Eredivise 10. 2. Bundisliga 11. J1 Ligue 12. Premeira Liga (Portugal) 13. - 20. Other 2nd divisions in Fance, Italy, etc. Turkey's 1st division and Primera Division Argentina and Liga MX And then maybe somewhere in the 20 to 30 range you will find MLS. As I said there is no reason that MLS can't get up into the Top 10. That still doesn't mean it will be relevant to the average American. I watch a lot of soccer, I am not the average sports fan... If you look at TV contracts you can see that MLS is decades from becoming relevant in the US... 1. NFL $7B+ 2. NBA $2.0B+ 3. MLB $1.2B+ 4. SEC $400M+ 5. B1G $300M+ 6. P12 $300M 7. ACC $225M 8. B12 $220M 9. NHL $200M 10. MLS $80M The average B12 team brings in ~$22M while the average MLS franchise gets less than $4M per year. If you assume that you can bring in $4M in profit from own revenues and count the TV revenue as pure profit then it would take about 20 years to pay back the franchise fee of $150M to $200M... a horrible return. If you look at where the tv revenue would have to come from it isn't likely that MLS will even see a doubling from Media Recenue, but if they did they would still be significantly below The NHL in terms of tv relevance...
|
|
|
Post by naztec on Jul 18, 2017 21:49:24 GMT -8
So I'm just trying to follow along here. Do you think that a professional sports league should determine the awarding of an expansion franchise according to the whims of a mountain west football team whose administration has demonstrated clear ineptitude and sell them a franchise below what the league can command at market value? I'm not really sure what your actual argument is, other than MLS isn't legitimate. Although the premise of this thread is that MLS IS legitimate, but FSI is a failing candidate for this legitimate league. I actually think that the MLS is a legitimate league and could be a Top 10 worldwide league by 2025 or 2030... but not today... 1. Premiership 2. La Liga 3. Bundasliga 4. Serbia A 5. Ligue 1 6. Campeanato Brasileiro 7. Russian Premier League 8. EFL 9. Eredivise 10. 2. Bundisliga 11. J1 Ligue 12. Premeira Liga (Portugal) 13. - 20. Other 2nd divisions in Fance, Italy, etc. Turkey's 1st division and Primera Division Argentina and Liga MX And then maybe somewhere in the 20 to 30 range you will find MLS. As I said there is no reason that MLS can't get up into the Top 10. That still doesn't mean it will be relevant to the average American. I watch a lot of soccer, I am not the average sports fan... If you look at TV contracts you can see that MLS is decades from becoming relevant in the US... 1. NFL $7B+ 2. NBA $2.0B+ 3. MLB $1.2B+ 4. SEC $400M+ 5. B1G $300M+ 6. P12 $300M 7. ACC $225M 8. B12 $220M 9. NHL $200M 10. MLS $80M The average B12 team brings in ~$22M while the average MLS franchise gets less than $4M per year. If you assume that you can bring in $4M in profit from own revenues and count the TV revenue as pure profit then it would take about 20 years to pay back the franchise fee of $150M to $200M... a horrible return. If you look at where the tv revenue would have to come from it isn't likely that MLS will even see a doubling from Media Recenue, but if they did they would still be significantly below The NHL in terms of tv relevance... Eurosnob
|
|
|
Post by naztec on Jul 18, 2017 22:15:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 18, 2017 22:46:29 GMT -8
So I'm just trying to follow along here. Do you think that a professional sports league should determine the awarding of an expansion franchise according to the whims of a mountain west football team whose administration has demonstrated clear ineptitude and sell them a franchise below what the league can command at market value? I'm not really sure what your actual argument is, other than MLS isn't legitimate. Although the premise of this thread is that MLS IS legitimate, but FSI is a failing candidate for this legitimate league. I actually think that the MLS is a legitimate league and could be a Top 10 worldwide league by 2025 or 2030... but not today... 1. Premiership 2. La Liga 3. Bundasliga 4. Serbia A 5. Ligue 1 6. Campeanato Brasileiro 7. Russian Premier League 8. EFL 9. Eredivise 10. 2. Bundisliga 11. J1 Ligue 12. Premeira Liga (Portugal) 13. - 20. Other 2nd divisions in Fance, Italy, etc. Turkey's 1st division and Primera Division Argentina and Liga MX And then maybe somewhere in the 20 to 30 range you will find MLS. As I said there is no reason that MLS can't get up into the Top 10. That still doesn't mean it will be relevant to the average American. I watch a lot of soccer, I am not the average sports fan... If you look at TV contracts you can see that MLS is decades from becoming relevant in the US... 1. NFL $7B+ 2. NBA $2.0B+ 3. MLB $1.2B+ 4. SEC $400M+ 5. B1G $300M+ 6. P12 $300M 7. ACC $225M 8. B12 $220M 9. NHL $200M 10. MLS $80M The average B12 team brings in ~$22M while the average MLS franchise gets less than $4M per year. If you assume that you can bring in $4M in profit from own revenues and count the TV revenue as pure profit then it would take about 20 years to pay back the franchise fee of $150M to $200M... a horrible return. If you look at where the tv revenue would have to come from it isn't likely that MLS will even see a doubling from Media Recenue, but if they did they would still be significantly below The NHL in terms of tv relevance... Actually, one survey had MLS ranked 10th in the world. I have heard of others that list MLS as #9 in the world. Although, as this survey says--"One downer is the fact that top players from Europe uses MLS as their last destination to end their careers." Get themselves one last payday and ride off into the sunset. With all that, I still am concerned about the long-term viability of all the MLS franchises. And will MLS keep expanding beyond 28 teams? If so, why?
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 19, 2017 3:07:39 GMT -8
So I'm just trying to follow along here. Do you think that a professional sports league should determine the awarding of an expansion franchise according to the whims of a mountain west football team whose administration has demonstrated clear ineptitude and sell them a franchise below what the league can command at market value? I'm not really sure what your actual argument is, other than MLS isn't legitimate. Although the premise of this thread is that MLS IS legitimate, but FSI is a failing candidate for this legitimate league. Fact: MLS requires a $150 million expansion fee Fact: MLS is losing money, and those that pay expansion Fee will lose money in the immediate future Fact: Expansion fee will be used to fund current clubs Fact: There are numerous viable bids, and many "owners" appear to be ready to pay fee Summary: As of today, MLS is a losing proposition. Additionally, due to the number of viable bidders, it appears that even though this is true, there will be more than enough bidders and Soccer City is basically dead. Opinion: Garber and Co will take the $775 million ($25 million from Beckham, $150 million from FC LA, and $600 million from the remaining four expansion teams) that is guaranteed. Soccer City doesn't have a chance even if the initiative passes in November. Feel better?
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 19, 2017 3:09:09 GMT -8
I actually think that the MLS is a legitimate league and could be a Top 10 worldwide league by 2025 or 2030... but not today... 1. Premiership 2. La Liga 3. Bundasliga 4. Serbia A 5. Ligue 1 6. Campeanato Brasileiro 7. Russian Premier League 8. EFL 9. Eredivise 10. 2. Bundisliga 11. J1 Ligue 12. Premeira Liga (Portugal) 13. - 20. Other 2nd divisions in Fance, Italy, etc. Turkey's 1st division and Primera Division Argentina and Liga MX And then maybe somewhere in the 20 to 30 range you will find MLS. As I said there is no reason that MLS can't get up into the Top 10. That still doesn't mean it will be relevant to the average American. I watch a lot of soccer, I am not the average sports fan... If you look at TV contracts you can see that MLS is decades from becoming relevant in the US... 1. NFL $7B+ 2. NBA $2.0B+ 3. MLB $1.2B+ 4. SEC $400M+ 5. B1G $300M+ 6. P12 $300M 7. ACC $225M 8. B12 $220M 9. NHL $200M 10. MLS $80M The average B12 team brings in ~$22M while the average MLS franchise gets less than $4M per year. If you assume that you can bring in $4M in profit from own revenues and count the TV revenue as pure profit then it would take about 20 years to pay back the franchise fee of $150M to $200M... a horrible return. If you look at where the tv revenue would have to come from it isn't likely that MLS will even see a doubling from Media Recenue, but if they did they would still be significantly below The NHL in terms of tv relevance... Eurosnob Ahhh, facts are tricky things.
|
|
|
Post by naztec on Jul 19, 2017 6:37:52 GMT -8
Ahhh, facts are tricky things. 14 out of 30 NHL teams lose money annually and the Vegas Golden Knights expansion fee was $500. Sports franchises appreciate, that's their value. Some franchises in all sports leagues, including MLS turn annual profit. But MLS owners buy into Soccer United Marketing, a single entity that is probably what everyone here likes to call the Ponzi scheme. MLS hasn't played a game in a week and a half but all the exhibition games, Liga MX games, CONCACAF Gold Cup games being played across the country right now are making MLS owners money that won't show up on the franchise books. It's a tax write-off for them to show a loss for the franchise itself. Soccer is a profitable business in the US and has been for some time. Don Garber goes to lengths to HIDE how much SUM makes. It's difficult and tiresome to explain if your going to frame an argument linearly based on franchise revenue to advance the argument that MLS is not as good an investment as a college football team in a truly failing league like the Mountain West, where tv revenue isn't even divided equally. But go back to watching your interim president fumble around this clusterf***. Come back and make fun of MLS when you ego needs a boost. www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/soccer/2016/8/9/12404638/mls-expansion-fee-number-of-teams-200-million
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 19, 2017 6:41:44 GMT -8
Ahhh, facts are tricky things. 14 out of 30 NHL teams lose money annually and the Vegas Golden Knights expansion fee was $500. Sports franchises appreciate, that's their value. Some franchises in all sports leagues, including MLS turn annual profit. But MLS owners buy into Soccer United Marketing, a single entity that is probably what everyone here likes to call the Ponzi scheme. MLS hasn't played a game in a week and a half but all the exhibition games, Liga MX games, CONCACAF Gold Cup games being played across the country right now are making MLS owners money that won't show up on the franchise books. It's a tax write-off for them to show a loss for the franchise itself. Soccer is a profitable business in the US and has been for some time. Don Garber goes to lengths to HIDE how much SUM makes. It's difficult and tiresome to explain if your going to frame an argument linearly based on franchise revenue to advance the argument that MLS is not as good an investment as a college football team in a truly failing league like the Mountain West, where tv revenue isn't even divided equally. But go back to watching your interim president fumble around this clusterf***. Come back and make fun of MLS when you ego needs a boost. www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/soccer/2016/8/9/12404638/mls-expansion-fee-number-of-teams-200-millionI am not framing any argument. If there are hidden numbers somewhere that I don't know about, I am certainly open to seeing them, and would change my mind. I don't care about the MLS, but strangely have become interested in the expansion beauty pageant, because I find sport politics to be interesting. I am simply pointing out that there are 12 bids, in which six or seven are viable. There are only four open spots. Point is, SD is not going to get one of those four spots. You are comparing the MLS to the MW, and SDSU's leadership. You are using a non-sequitur argument to prove a point that doesn't need to been proven, nor is relevant to the topic. SDSU is not competing with MLS, and neither is the MW. And you are talking about my ego? Damn. Continue on with your logical fallacies. Enjoy. Edit: regarding the article you linked, that is all speculation. Bottom line, a company's value is based on their EBITDA. Any organization would jump at the chance to sell at four to six times EBITDA. All indications are that MLS EBITDA is not pretty.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jul 19, 2017 7:35:27 GMT -8
Ahhh, facts are tricky things. 14 out of 30 NHL teams lose money annually and the Vegas Golden Knights expansion fee was $500. Sports franchises appreciate, that's their value. Some franchises in all sports leagues, including MLS turn annual profit. But MLS owners buy into Soccer United Marketing, a single entity that is probably what everyone here likes to call the Ponzi scheme. MLS hasn't played a game in a week and a half but all the exhibition games, Liga MX games, CONCACAF Gold Cup games being played across the country right now are making MLS owners money that won't show up on the franchise books. It's a tax write-off for them to show a loss for the franchise itself. Soccer is a profitable business in the US and has been for some time. Don Garber goes to lengths to HIDE how much SUM makes. It's difficult and tiresome to explain if your going to frame an argument linearly based on franchise revenue to advance the argument that MLS is not as good an investment as a college football team in a truly failing league like the Mountain West, where tv revenue isn't even divided equally. But go back to watching your interim president fumble around this clusterf***. Come back and make fun of MLS when you ego needs a boost. www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/soccer/2016/8/9/12404638/mls-expansion-fee-number-of-teams-200-millionIt's not worth the time to make fun of MLS. All you need to do is watch MLS play vs many other pro leagues worldwide. But you mention that some MLS teams turn an annual profit--assuming that some do not--but then you say that the MLS commissioner goes to lengths to HIDE how much MLS makes through Soccer United Marketing. So, is MLS really making gobs of money, or are the Forbes numbers showing half of the teams in 2015 were losing money and MLS lost $6 million in combined operating income wrong? The 4 major sports league have increased their value mainly by new, lucrative broadcast rights fees. And yes, there have been some relocations that also increased certain franchise values, which pushed all teams in that league higher (see NFL). But there has been very little in the way of expansion in the last 15 years or so. How does the MLS increase franchise values? By expansion. Period. I would like to see MLS go 5 years without further expansion and see just how many teams would still be viable after that time. If they all could make it through that time--more power to them. I just don't think that all the teams would survive.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 29, 2017 5:24:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecalum on Jul 29, 2017 9:18:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 29, 2017 9:22:36 GMT -8
Yup, Tampa, Cincinnati, Nashville, and Raleigh are all highly competitive for the Eastern Conference spots.
|
|
|
Post by charger90 on Jul 29, 2017 9:59:29 GMT -8
So I'm just trying to follow along here. Do you think that a professional sports league should determine the awarding of an expansion franchise according to the whims of a mountain west football team whose administration has demonstrated clear ineptitude and sell them a franchise below what the league can command at market value? I'm not really sure what your actual argument is, other than MLS isn't legitimate. Although the premise of this thread is that MLS IS legitimate, but FSI is a failing candidate for this legitimate league. I actually think that the MLS is a legitimate league and could be a Top 10 worldwide league by 2025 or 2030... but not today... 1. Premiership 2. La Liga 3. Bundasliga 4. Serbia A 5. Ligue 1 6. Campeanato Brasileiro 7. Russian Premier League 8. EFL 9. Eredivise 10. 2. Bundisliga 11. J1 Ligue 12. Premeira Liga (Portugal) 13. - 20. Other 2nd divisions in Fance, Italy, etc. Turkey's 1st division and Primera Division Argentina and Liga MX And then maybe somewhere in the 20 to 30 range you will find MLS. As I said there is no reason that MLS can't get up into the Top 10. That still doesn't mean it will be relevant to the average American. I watch a lot of soccer, I am not the average sports fan... If you look at TV contracts you can see that MLS is decades from becoming relevant in the US... 1. NFL $7B+ 2. NBA $2.0B+ 3. MLB $1.2B+ 4. SEC $400M+ 5. B1G $300M+ 6. P12 $300M 7. ACC $225M 8. B12 $220M 9. NHL $200M 10. MLS $80M The average B12 team brings in ~$22M while the average MLS franchise gets less than $4M per year. If you assume that you can bring in $4M in profit from own revenues and count the TV revenue as pure profit then it would take about 20 years to pay back the franchise fee of $150M to $200M... a horrible return. If you look at where the tv revenue would have to come from it isn't likely that MLS will even see a doubling from Media Recenue, but if they did they would still be significantly below The NHL in terms of tv relevance... This has to be one of the worst lists ive ever seen :rotflmao Serbia A, J1 League, Bundesliga 2, Russian Premiere league, PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARENT TROLLING AND YOU REALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU TYPE
|
|
|
Post by charger90 on Jul 29, 2017 10:01:52 GMT -8
Ahhh, facts are tricky things. Please tell me you believe that top league list :rotflmao
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 29, 2017 10:20:17 GMT -8
Ahhh, facts are tricky things. Please tell me you believe that top league list :rotflmao I don't care. It's not internationally respected one way or another, and the league will never turn a profit. SD is not getting an MLS team, and SDSU will have a stadium and expansion. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by charger90 on Jul 29, 2017 10:26:11 GMT -8
Please tell me you believe that top league list :rotflmao I don't care. It's not internationally respected one way or another, and the league will never turn a profit. SD is not getting an MLS team, and SDSU will have a stadium and expansion. Sorry. LOL you dont care yet you cared enough to claim them as facts :rotflmao you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to soccer or the MLS. I usually just chuckle at your posts and others but this was too much
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 29, 2017 10:35:32 GMT -8
I don't care. It's not internationally respected one way or another, and the league will never turn a profit. SD is not getting an MLS team, and SDSU will have a stadium and expansion. Sorry. LOL you dont care yet you cared enough to claim them as facts :rotflmao you really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to soccer or the MLS. I usually just chuckle at your posts and others but this was too much Tell me where I am wrong about expansion? It's easy to read and see where it is going.
|
|
|
Post by fanhood on Jul 29, 2017 10:38:31 GMT -8
m.startribune.com/soccer-insider-mls-not-on-the-same-level-as-world-s-elite-leagues/380333011/"Placing MLS in a worldwide context is harder. While MLS attendances is top 10 in the world, the on-field product isn’t there yet. Given players who have moved back and forth between MLS and Europe, the league is probably on par with some of Europe’s smaller leagues, such as Norway or Scotland. An even better comparison might be the second divisions of Europe’s top leagues; most MLS teams would be able to compete in the English Championship or the 2. Bundesliga (the German league’s second division)."
|
|