El Hombre Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by G-Man Stadiums may play home to teams and fans, but economically the do nothing for a community. Building this MLS stadium will generate about as much economic activity as opening up a winners on that spot. Lets just leave that soccer and MSLE made out like bandits with the 35 million handed to them...35 million for at best 20 dates with a grand total of 12000 an event...sounds like a waste... <snip a lot of superfluous study verbiage> It concluded that "A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment." 8 It's all well and good to trot out studies and such, but if they have little bearing on the issue at hand they only serve to obfuscate the debate. Firstly, the community will have immediate returns on the stadium in the form of the WYC. No stadium and it was quite conceivable that there would be no WYC in Toronto. Not only will this generate jobs directly related to the operation of the stadium but also benefit the periphery with the added increase in tourism. The thing with soccer it seems is that, unlike football, a significant number of people make special trips to see the games, especially for a big tournament like the WYC. Then there are friendlies down the road and possibly more tournaments (gold cup, women's world cup etc.) To analyse the impact of a new stadium, you have to take all factors into account and not just the ones directly affected. Secondly, your example deals with a $177 million US stadium whereas we are talking about a $62 million Cdn stadium (correct me if I'm wrong about the currencies, not sure why we'd be talking in American dollars). Minus the private investment in the stadium and we're talking about two different barrels of apples. Studies are fun to read, but you have to be able to apply them correctly to have any meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by El Hombre It's all well and good to trot out studies and such, but if they have little bearing on the issue at hand they only serve to obfuscate the debate. Firstly, the community will have immediate returns on the stadium in the form of the WYC. No stadium and it was quite conceivable that there would be no WYC in Toronto. Not only will this generate jobs directly related to the operation of the stadium but also benefit the periphery with the added increase in tourism. The thing with soccer it seems is that, unlike football, a significant number of people make special trips to see the games, especially for a big tournament like the WYC. Then there are friendlies down the road and possibly more tournaments (gold cup, women's world cup etc.) To analyse the impact of a new stadium, you have to take all factors into account and not just the ones directly affected. Secondly, your example deals with a $177 million US stadium whereas we are talking about a $62 million Cdn stadium (correct me if I'm wrong about the currencies, not sure why we'd be talking in American dollars). Minus the private investment in the stadium and we're talking about two different barrels of apples. Studies are fun to read, but you have to be able to apply them correctly to have any meaning. Studies are crap compared to your statements. And I'm painted as the no nothing troll. I wonder how many Panamains or New Yorkers will travel to Canada for any game. Tourism? please. the crackheads will deny anything to feed the habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by G-Man Studies are crap compared to your statements. And I'm painted as the no nothing troll. I wonder how many Panamains or New Yorkers will travel to Canada for any game. Tourism? please. the crackheads will deny anything to feed the habit. So is it your assertion that we will not see one single foreigner at the WYC in '07? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Rudi So is it your assertion that we will not see one single foreigner at the WYC in '07? Doesn't always have to be a "foreigner"-type foreigner either. Can also be a Canadian from another part of the country. If we're talking about helping the local community economy, that counts too. Edit: normally I'd let this thread die, but I'm just too darn close to 300 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Rudi So is it your assertion that we will not see one single foreigner at the WYC in '07? Doesn't always have to be a "foreigner"-type foreigner either. Can also be a Canadian from another part of the country. If we're talking about helping the local community economy, that counts too. Edit: normally I'd let this thread die, but I'm just too darn close to 300 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmolinaro Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Gianluca... Thanks for your comments. A few things: A colleague of mine did the FAQ, but it's my fault for not getting a chance to copyedit it before it was posted online. Had I done that, I would have caught the Lynx ommission and the international 'declassify' issue. Again, my fault though. Regarding the Blizzard failing, however, I stick by what I wrote about the Blizzard being a failure. Yes, the NASL folded underneath them, but the team was a failure in many ways and I do not think it is factually incorrect to refer to the club as such. I also stand by the statement that there have been plenty of similar soccer failures in Toronto. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Regarding this: "what did you expect them to do, tell the gov't "no thanks, take your money back we've got $35 million of our own to use"?) Of course not. The point is had the $35 million not been on the table to begin with, MLSE would not be going after an MLS club. As I said, it's one thing for MLSE to say this is going to work when they don't have to worry about covering the majority of the costs of the stadium. Its another matter entirely if MLSE had to pay for the entire stadium itself. And I don't think there can be much serious debate that if that was the case, MLSE's interest in an MLS club would vanish. Anyway, it's all a moot point now anyway. The stadium is coming, MLS is going to grant Toronto a franchise on Saturday. I would like nothing more to be proven 100% wrong and hope MLSE can make a go of it. JM quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Thanks for the link. Great to see the publicity so far, and MLSE has even starting promoting the team yet. Its going to be like night vs. day in the Toronto area with respect to the promotion of pro soccer to what we've had the past 10 years. Case in point - anyone notice this part from the CBC FAQ: "Are there any Canadian teams currently in MLS? Toronto will become the first Canadian club in MLS history. The Vancouver Whitecaps and the Montreal Impact currently compete in the United Soccer League (formerly known as the A-League), which is the soccer equivalent of hockey's American Hockey League. MLS has indicated further expansion in Canada is an option sometime down the road." Notice which USL Div. 1 team isn't even mentioned in the paragraph. I guess I should be ripping apart the author of the FAQ (whoever it is) for shoddy journalism (there is another question in the FAQ which is also poorly answered, re: whether the MLS will "de-classify" Canadian players as internationals), but I think the fact that it was this easy to forget/omit/not even know about (whatever the case may be) the Lynx speaks volumes. Hopefully loud enough to get the point through to those people who think there will be no difference in Toronto between the Hartrell-run USL team and the MLSE run MLS team. As for the point/counter-point article, I strongly disagree with John Molinaro's point of view, but that should come as no surprise. Apart from the dubious tactic of linking the fact that MLSE are not funding the entire stadium when they were presented with $35 million of gov't cash from the get go (what did you expect them to do John, tell the gov't "no thanks, take your money back we've got $35 million of our own to use"?) to the issue of whether people will be interested in the product itself (which is the only factor in the end that will decide whether it succeeds), the biggest mistake of all, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this (if you are reading John, you'll be the 3rd journalist I have had to correct on this in the past week), the NASL Blizzard did not fail. The NASL failed, not the Blizzard. Not the Blizzard's fault, nor the City of Toronto and its soccer supporters, that they had no teams to play against other than the Cosmos after 1984. Not much point in having a two team league. This isn't a bit of soccer fanatic nit-picking on my part, this is a major fact to get correct as it very much undermines the argument that MLS in Toronto will fail because of similar past failures....since there aren't any similar past failures. If you want to argue the MLS in Toronto will fail because the league will fail and fold like the NASL did, that's one thing. But there is no past history of failure of the Blizzard in the NASL on which to base an argument that the same will happen to an equivalent MLS franchise. If there is an argument, it has to be based on actual facts, rather than journalistic myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmolinaro Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Gianluca... Thanks for your comments. A few things: A colleague of mine did the FAQ, but it's my fault for not getting a chance to copyedit it before it was posted online. Had I done that, I would have caught the Lynx ommission and the international 'declassify' issue. Again, my fault though. Regarding the Blizzard failing, however, I stick by what I wrote about the Blizzard being a failure. Yes, the NASL folded underneath them, but the team was a failure in many ways and I do not think it is factually incorrect to refer to the club as such. I also stand by the statement that there have been plenty of similar soccer failures in Toronto. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Regarding this: "what did you expect them to do, tell the gov't "no thanks, take your money back we've got $35 million of our own to use"?) Of course not. The point is had the $35 million not been on the table to begin with, MLSE would not be going after an MLS club. As I said, it's one thing for MLSE to say this is going to work when they don't have to worry about covering the majority of the costs of the stadium. Its another matter entirely if MLSE had to pay for the entire stadium itself. And I don't think there can be much serious debate that if that was the case, MLSE's interest in an MLS club would vanish. Anyway, it's all a moot point now anyway. The stadium is coming, MLS is going to grant Toronto a franchise on Saturday. I would like nothing more to be proven 100% wrong and hope MLSE can make a go of it. JM quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Thanks for the link. Great to see the publicity so far, and MLSE has even starting promoting the team yet. Its going to be like night vs. day in the Toronto area with respect to the promotion of pro soccer to what we've had the past 10 years. Case in point - anyone notice this part from the CBC FAQ: "Are there any Canadian teams currently in MLS? Toronto will become the first Canadian club in MLS history. The Vancouver Whitecaps and the Montreal Impact currently compete in the United Soccer League (formerly known as the A-League), which is the soccer equivalent of hockey's American Hockey League. MLS has indicated further expansion in Canada is an option sometime down the road." Notice which USL Div. 1 team isn't even mentioned in the paragraph. I guess I should be ripping apart the author of the FAQ (whoever it is) for shoddy journalism (there is another question in the FAQ which is also poorly answered, re: whether the MLS will "de-classify" Canadian players as internationals), but I think the fact that it was this easy to forget/omit/not even know about (whatever the case may be) the Lynx speaks volumes. Hopefully loud enough to get the point through to those people who think there will be no difference in Toronto between the Hartrell-run USL team and the MLSE run MLS team. As for the point/counter-point article, I strongly disagree with John Molinaro's point of view, but that should come as no surprise. Apart from the dubious tactic of linking the fact that MLSE are not funding the entire stadium when they were presented with $35 million of gov't cash from the get go (what did you expect them to do John, tell the gov't "no thanks, take your money back we've got $35 million of our own to use"?) to the issue of whether people will be interested in the product itself (which is the only factor in the end that will decide whether it succeeds), the biggest mistake of all, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this (if you are reading John, you'll be the 3rd journalist I have had to correct on this in the past week), the NASL Blizzard did not fail. The NASL failed, not the Blizzard. Not the Blizzard's fault, nor the City of Toronto and its soccer supporters, that they had no teams to play against other than the Cosmos after 1984. Not much point in having a two team league. This isn't a bit of soccer fanatic nit-picking on my part, this is a major fact to get correct as it very much undermines the argument that MLS in Toronto will fail because of similar past failures....since there aren't any similar past failures. If you want to argue the MLS in Toronto will fail because the league will fail and fold like the NASL did, that's one thing. But there is no past history of failure of the Blizzard in the NASL on which to base an argument that the same will happen to an equivalent MLS franchise. If there is an argument, it has to be based on actual facts, rather than journalistic myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Keay Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by johnmolinaro Of course not. The point is had the $35 million not been on the table to begin with, MLSE would not be going after an MLS club. As I said, it's one thing for MLSE to say this is going to work when they don't have to worry about covering the majority of the costs of the stadium. Its another matter entirely if MLSE had to pay for the entire stadium itself. And I don't think there can be much serious debate that if that was the case, MLSE's interest in an MLS club would vanish. Why is this a problem though? Everything has its value, and to MLSE, paying somewhere in the range of 80 million for an MLS franchise and a stadium wouldn't be a good value whereas paying somewhere in the range of 20 million for an MLS franchise is. The fact that they are interested at that stage, and not the previous one, seems to indicate they see a certain degree of profitability in this venture, just not enough of one of to justify the extra 60 million. The fate of the MLS team lies entirely in the hands of MLSE, and that will determine the fate of the soccer team. This seem to tend more towards arguments that the stadium will be a failure rather than the MLS team. MLSE is putting a lot of money into this team. Profitable corporations don't drop twenty million on hopeless cases. I'm not going to say this is an obvious success either, but I personally have no doubt, that if things are done right, that this team can be a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Keay Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by johnmolinaro Of course not. The point is had the $35 million not been on the table to begin with, MLSE would not be going after an MLS club. As I said, it's one thing for MLSE to say this is going to work when they don't have to worry about covering the majority of the costs of the stadium. Its another matter entirely if MLSE had to pay for the entire stadium itself. And I don't think there can be much serious debate that if that was the case, MLSE's interest in an MLS club would vanish. Why is this a problem though? Everything has its value, and to MLSE, paying somewhere in the range of 80 million for an MLS franchise and a stadium wouldn't be a good value whereas paying somewhere in the range of 20 million for an MLS franchise is. The fact that they are interested at that stage, and not the previous one, seems to indicate they see a certain degree of profitability in this venture, just not enough of one of to justify the extra 60 million. The fate of the MLS team lies entirely in the hands of MLSE, and that will determine the fate of the soccer team. This seem to tend more towards arguments that the stadium will be a failure rather than the MLS team. MLSE is putting a lot of money into this team. Profitable corporations don't drop twenty million on hopeless cases. I'm not going to say this is an obvious success either, but I personally have no doubt, that if things are done right, that this team can be a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealGooner Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Ryan Keay Why is this a problem though? Everything has its value, and to MLSE, paying somewhere in the range of 80 million for an MLS franchise and a stadium wouldn't be a good value whereas paying somewhere in the range of 20 million for an MLS franchise is. The fact that they are interested at that stage, and not the previous one, seems to indicate they see a certain degree of profitability in this venture, just not enough of one of to justify the extra 60 million. The fate of the MLS team lies entirely in the hands of MLSE, and that will determine the fate of the soccer team. This seem to tend more towards arguments that the stadium will be a failure rather than the MLS team. MLSE is putting a lot of money into this team. Profitable corporations don't drop twenty million on hopeless cases. I'm not going to say this is an obvious success either, but I personally have no doubt, that if things are done right, that this team can be a success. Thats basically spot-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Firstly John, thanks for the response. It is appreciated. quote:Originally posted by johnmolinaro Regarding the Blizzard failing, however, I stick by what I wrote about the Blizzard being a failure. Yes, the NASL folded underneath them, but the team was a failure in many ways and I do not think it is factually incorrect to refer to the club as such. Could you perhaps then tell us what these "many ways" were? True, you could say they failed to win an NASL championship like the Metros did, but that has little do with whether the team will succeed at the gate. The way you used the term failed in the context of the article was whether the club failed off the field, rather than on it. So yes, you could argue that they "failed" in some aspect, but not in the one that was relevant to the point you were making. To my mind, that is an inaccurate part of the article. You know as well as I do that people who have read your article & the Star's Cathal Kelly's will go away thinking, if they don't know any better, that the Blizzard folded in 1984 of their own accord, presumably because of a lack of interest or support with Torontonians, rather than because the league was being taken away from them. And that is not the case. And for what it's worth, Kelly has admitted to me that he got that bit in his article wrong. Incidentally, I'm not sure what the 4th version of the Blizzard you were referring to is - the indoor team? If so, that's another sport altogether, not proper soccer, certainly not the kind that MLSE is bringing to the city. quote: I also stand by the statement that there have been plenty of similar soccer failures in Toronto. Such as.....? I think you have to go back to 1968 to find one that might qualify, with the Toronto Falcons of the inaugural NASL year. Keep in mind that all but 5 teams of that league folded, and soccer's popularity (& that of the Canadian game) was nowhere near the level it is now back then, so even then I'm not sure how "similar" the situations are. That's nearly 40 years ago now. quote: We'll just have to agree to disagree. Sure. No problem there. quote: Of course not. The point is had the $35 million not been on the table to begin with, MLSE would not be going after an MLS club. Probably true, but again I think its a very tenous connection to make as an argument that the franchise will fail, for the reasons that Ryan has already outlined in his post. It also ignores the MLSE having stepped up big-time to make the stadium happen at all. That can't be because they expect the team to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Ryan Keay Why is this a problem though? Everything has its value, and to MLSE, paying somewhere in the range of 80 million for an MLS franchise and a stadium wouldn't be a good value whereas paying somewhere in the range of 20 million for an MLS franchise is. The fact that they are interested at that stage, and not the previous one, seems to indicate they see a certain degree of profitability in this venture, just not enough of one of to justify the extra 60 million. Not sure that is entirely true. One of the business lines for MLSE is facility management. If someone had said to MLSE, "for $20 million I can grant you a long term management agreement with limited downside and unlimited upside to allow you to expand your facility management business beyond its current scope (ie. indoor arenas) to now include a 20,000+ outdoor venue to allow your concert business to further compete with other facilities in the city", they might (I think would) have done the same thing with or without a soccer team. The bringing of the soccer team just represents part of their buy in to this facility. quote:The fate of the MLS team lies entirely in the hands of MLSE, and that will determine the fate of the soccer team. This seem to tend more towards arguments that the stadium will be a failure rather than the MLS team. MLSE is putting a lot of money into this team. Profitable corporations don't drop twenty million on hopeless cases. But they are not dropping twenty million into the soccer team...they are dropping ten million into the team and, by doing so, making themselves the only candidate to manage the facility. quote:I'm not going to say this is an obvious success either, but I personally have no doubt, that if things are done right, that this team can be a success. I wish I was as sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan But they are not dropping twenty million into the soccer team...they are dropping ten million into the team and, by doing so, making themselves the only candidate to manage the facility. Even if you were to take the cynical view that MLSE is only in this solely to control the stadium for concerts they can't put into the ACC (which is dubious contention in my view but that's another debate) and therefore the cash they are putting into the stadium doesn't count as putting cash into the MLS team, that still wouldn't be true. The expansion fee is actually not known, except that the MLS has said the fee would be slightly higher than $10 million (in US funds) that Chivas & Salt Lake paid. As such, for all we know the expansion fee alone could amount to $20 million Canadian. Its definitely more than $10 million Canadian. Also, are there no operating costs to running the soccer team? No new staff, players, coaches etc. they have to hire, no money spent on marketing or promotion, etc., etc.? The amount they are spending on the MLS team, even not including the cost of getting the building done on time, will be well above $10 million. And I don't think the MLSE would even sink $10 million into something they expect will fail miserably. Not exactly great optics for MLSE if they have a miserable failure on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Even if you were to take the cynical view that MLSE is only in this solely to control the stadium for concerts they can't put into the ACC (which is dubious contention in my view but that's another debate) and therefore the cash they are putting into the stadium doesn't count as putting cash into the MLS team, that still wouldn't be true. It wasn't, and isn't, my contention that it is solely </u>to get at the management. It is, however, a considerable factor. Getting the management is a big deal for MLSE (some summer events need/want to be outdoors and the ACC can't, obviously, compete with the Ampitheatre for those events). Also, the management agreement will allow for MLSE to make money every time the stadium is used...that is why it was important for them to get a guarantee from the CSA as to the number of events they would use the stadium for. Anyway, I also believe they will do what they can to make MLS a success...I just don't believe they will hang in there too long with it if it does not look like it is going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Keay Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 A bit of a hypothesis: Lets assume a 5,000,000 Operating Budget, about 50% to 60% spent on player salaries. The rest on front office expenses, sales, promotions, advertising etc. I'd say thats a healthy number. Anyone have a good idea of what a typical MLS team's budget is? Anyways with 16 home dates this would require an average of $312,500 of revenue to be made at every game. Lets be conservative and say the Toronto team can drawn an average of 10,000 per game at an average ticket price of $15 (the price of a Lynx ticket). Im sure almost everyone could see this as a realistic scenario. This will give the team $2,400,000 in revenue. Which is about half the operating budget of an MLS team. Similarly, lets say 12,500 at the same price gives us an even $3,000,000. Either way, with gate prices alone, the team has a pretty hefty shortfall. Here comes sponsorshop: MLS has a ten year deal worth $150 million dollars for MLS teams to wear their jersies. Thats 15 million a year, with a presumed 14 clubs, thats over a million dollars for the team. This gets us in the $3.5-$4 million revenue bracket. Now MLS has other leaguewide sponsors, corporations such as Kraft, Honda, Budweiser, Frito Lay and Pepsi. I have no idea of what these companies offer MLS for their deals, but it is probably fair to say, combined, this at the very least offers the MLS half a million dollars per club. This gets us to $4-$4.5 million. Local sponsorship will then come into play. Jersey sponsor, ad boards, etc. I cant even begin to guess what this is worth to an MLS team, although I do think its reasonable to estimate this at around half a million a season as well. I do know that Chivas USA gets around 3.5 million a year in local sponsors, but theyre clearly a special case. By my estimates, if the team can only draw 10000 a game, with no playoff games, they lose half a million and if they can get 12500 they will break even. That isnt even counting things like merch and concession sales and (in a dreamers world) tv rights. Really, these seem like pretty modest goals to shoot for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan It wasn't, and isn't, my contention that it is solely </u>to get at the management. It is, however, a considerable factor. Well I would agree with that - but that means then that you have to add at least a portion of the cost of building the stadium (since part of the purpose of it is to run a soccer team) in terms of the overall financial figure that MLSE is pouring into the team - which means that the overall figure, regardless of what portion you attribute, will be well above $10 million Canadian. A considerable investment, but if they were to fund the entire venture, when you add the cost overruns and the value of the land they would have to purchase to put their stadium on it, we are talking around $100 million before we add the costs of operating the team. Getting back to Ryan's point, I don't see the correlation between the MLSE valuing the team at worth spending $20 to $30 million on the team vs. not worth spending well over $100 million on the team as meaning that MLSE isn't confident that the team will be a viable one. As for how long MLSE will stay if the team is a bust, I hope we never have to find out. I don't think we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew W Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Ryan Keay A bit of a hypothesis: Lets assume a 5,000,000 Operating Budget, about 50% to 60% spent on player salaries. The rest on front office expenses, sales, promotions, advertising etc. I'd say thats a healthy number. Anyone have a good idea of what a typical MLS team's budget is? Anyways with 16 home dates this would require an average of $312,500 of revenue to be made at every game. Lets be conservative and say the Toronto team can drawn an average of 10,000 per game at an average ticket price of $15 (the price of a Lynx ticket). Im sure almost everyone could see this as a realistic scenario. This will give the team $2,400,000 in revenue. Which is about half the operating budget of an MLS team. Similarly, lets say 12,500 at the same price gives us an even $3,000,000. Either way, with gate prices alone, the team has a pretty hefty shortfall. Here comes sponsorshop: MLS has a ten year deal worth $150 million dollars for MLS teams to wear their jersies. Thats 15 million a year, with a presumed 14 clubs, thats over a million dollars for the team. This gets us in the $3.5-$4 million revenue bracket. Now MLS has other leaguewide sponsors, corporations such as Kraft, Honda, Budweiser, Frito Lay and Pepsi. I have no idea of what these companies offer MLS for their deals, but it is probably fair to say, combined, this at the very least offers the MLS half a million dollars per club. This gets us to $4-$4.5 million. Local sponsorship will then come into play. Jersey sponsor, ad boards, etc. I cant even begin to guess what this is worth to an MLS team, although I do think its reasonable to estimate this at around half a million a season as well. I do know that Chivas USA gets around 3.5 million a year in local sponsors, but theyre clearly a special case. By my estimates, if the team can only draw 10000 a game, with no playoff games, they lose half a million and if they can get 12500 they will break even. That isnt even counting things like merch and concession sales and (in a dreamers world) tv rights. Really, these seem like pretty modest goals to shoot for. A few points to keep in mind when working on your hypothesis. MLS pays 100 per cent of the salaries and keeps 100 per cent of national sponsorships and national media rights if they exist (not sure how that'd work with a Canadian team). As well, MLS gets 30 per cent of gate receipts while the local investor gets 70 per cent. The investor/operator is able to keep 100 per cent of revenues from concessions, parking, local sponsorships, other stadium revenue and local television and radio. They are responsible for 100 per cent of the front office expenses, team travel, broadcast expenses, rent and game-day expenses. 1 Of course the above is only MLS's financial structure. Any of the revenues the team gets to keep would then be shared based on any agreements they may or may not have with local authorities (much like Toronto MLS having to pay the city a portion of gate revenue, concessions, parking). From this information one can build any scenario they like. One thing I'd like to add is spending money on salaries can be a way to be competitive but it also doesn't guarantee anything. The MLS Cup this weekend features the #1 and #12 payrolls in the league. LA Galaxy have a 2005 payroll of US$2,700,000 while New England Revolution have a payroll of US$1,220,000. 1 The information I gleaned from the document "Feasibility Study, for a proposed Stadium, Sports Complex and Retail Development" presented to Kansas City Sports Commission and Foundation by Conventions, Sports and Leisure International. It was on Page 32 of the document (or page 17 via page numbering). I'd post a link for it, but I can't find it. I copied the PDF to my computer when the link appeared on BigSoccer. The copy of the report which I have was a final draft and contained some editing errors that posters on BS pointed out, but the MLS financial structure information has been determined to be valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Andrew WThe information I gleaned from the document "Feasibility Study, for a proposed Stadium, Sports Complex and Retail Development" presented to Kansas City Sports Commission and Foundation by Conventions, Sports and Leisure International. It was on Page 32 of the document (or page 17 via page numbering). I'd post a link for it, but I can't find it. http://www.kansascity.com/multimedia/kansascity/archive/sports/KC_Soccer_Final_Report.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crampton Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by G-Man Stadiums may play home to teams and fans, but economically the do nothing for a community. ...snip... A more recent study published by the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., echoed these findings. It concluded that "A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment." 8 Nice to see that the studies you quote actually contradict your assertion. Even a negative impact would be different from "economically doing nothing for a community." I don't even disagree with your premise btw... public stadiums rarely justify the cost in strictly economic terms. If they were such great investments you'd see a lot more private money being thrown at them. Just tone down the rhetoric. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Topic Silvio Toronto Canada 75 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 21:09:03 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBC.ca just devoted a whole in depth section to MLS in Toronto: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/mls_toronto/index.html So much for that mainstream media conspiracy theory. Gian-Luca Toronto-ish Canada 3274 Posts Posted - 11/10/2005 : 21:14:05 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This was actually already posted in the must-read Globe & Mail article thread, where one of the authors of the page has entered the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.