CSL Commissioner Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Ted, The CSL provides all its clubs with a league wide staff (currently 5 employees+), a percentage of all corporate revenues contribute to the league, we are gradually introducing more ticket sales and marketing support to clubs (a priority), and in general we are there is to support growth, protect the rules, and ultimately encourages revenues and in turn profitability for all clubs. Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Ted, The CSL provides all its clubs with a league wide staff (currently 5 employees+), a percentage of all corporate revenues contribute to the league, we are gradually introducing more ticket sales and marketing support to clubs (a priority), and in general we are there is to support growth, protect the rules, and ultimately encourages revenues and in turn profitability for all clubs. Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmparker Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 In his reply of Aug 3, Cary Kaplan states that "all the funds go right back into the league (to the owners and/or operating funds).". Isn't it true though that the franchise fees get split equally between the equity owners, which I think comprise 8 of the current team owners, and the league, so that only one-ninth actually goes to the league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 quote:Originally posted by elmparker In his reply of Aug 3, Cary Kaplan states that "all the funds go right back into the league (to the owners and/or operating funds).". Isn't it true though that the franchise fees get split equally between the equity owners, which I think comprise 8 of the current team owners, and the league, so that only one-ninth actually goes to the league? Elmparker, Exactly. All teams in good standing for 3 years become equity owners of the CSL, and franchise fees are paid to equity owners. Remember, the 'league' is an entity composed of 12 groups, they contribute operating costs, as a result, money to owners is in essence akin to paying money to the league. It is a very healthy model, once you have earned your place in the league, you share in franchise fees. Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard OK, let me add a couple more off the top of my head that I would expect to see for that kind of franchise fee: - Actual marketing, TV/Radio/Print advertising and promotion, as opposed to cheap and cheerful seminars. - League wide sponsorship deals with the revenues distributed to the clubs. The CSL is only really a southern Ontario league so media concentration is quite feasible. Not as if it is continent wide like the USL. Another question about the operation of the CSL - after the initial franchise fee is there any further payment required by teams to the league, if so what does it comprise? Richard, In addition to league fees, the team pay an annual operating fee ($15,000-$20,000/year) to run the league, for referees, marketing support, etc... Any significant paid advertising campaign is not in the budget, and currently is premature. Teams must do local team advertising, and league must brand build. 'Cheap and cheerful seminars' as you call them, if done correctly, are of far greater value, than buying advertsing in major media. When teams market effectively, the business will turn, as will the crowds. The concept of 'what do you expect for this kind of franchise fee' is the wrong attitude, and it is not how league's operate In the OHL for instance, teams pay $5 Million for a franchise and the league office is no bigger than the CSL. The league's job is build the profile, image, brand, and ultimately increase the franchise fees (the stock) over time. Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteEagle Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 quote:Originally posted by CSL Commissioner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteEagle Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 'Cheap and cheerful seminars' as you call them, if done correctly, are of far greater value, than buying advertsing in major media. When teams market effectively, the business will turn, as will the crowds. The concept of 'what do you expect for this kind of franchise fee' is the wrong attitude, and it is not how league's operate In the OHL for instance, teams pay $5 Million for a franchise and the league office is no bigger than the CSL. The league's job is build the profile, image, brand, and ultimately increase the franchise fees (the stock) over time. Cary Kaplan Cary, not sure as to what kind of profile the league is trying to project. What kind of "local" advertising are the teams doing when the average attendance at most games is in the below 100 spectators. How is the league going to help these teams develop and progress and keep up financially. As you are aware, most sport franchises depend on revenues built on three major factors - advance ticket and gate sales, advertising promotions/sponsorships, media (television etc.) So far we can safely say that the first factor is being done poorly as the gap between the teams is 50 to 2000 fans on average. With the exception of a few teams, revenues spent on advertising in either division is also in the same category with some non existant. Media coverage for games is also non existant - perhaps with the exception of persuing Rogers TV to broadcast a CSL game of the week or at least one or two exhibition internationals. For the record, I am not trying to be negative on the league but more so a proponant for more consistancy in the league's guidelines and assistance to it's members. Like most business, the managment team that controls the direction of the ship depends on whether it sails or runs aground. More exposure for this league is a MUST... is it professional or is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 White Eagle, Good points. Attendance is a process and going forward it is the league's top priority. So what does this mean. It means that all teams will be strongly encouraged, and ulitately required, to institute agressive ticket sales and marketing programs/staff in order to maximize both ticket sales and corporate revenues, as well as providing superior game day entertainment. Several existing clubs (Brampton, North York, Oakville, Italia) among them, have begun to move in this direction - and have seen some initial results. While attendance remains weak, our crowds this year on averge (excluding the success of the Serbian White Eagles) are up more than 100% around the league. As well, as a league we will attempt to create media partnerships (exposure, promtions, contests and trade) as opposed to investing dollars in media that have historically provided a limited return. Mostly, it is a process. The league has been much more solid in 2005 vs 2006, for a number of reasons...now attendance of each of our clubs needs be aggressively attacked for 2007 and beyond. Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I see an initial franchise fee relating to the revenue/profit potential for the franchise and serving as a natural regulator for expansion. From what I can gather, with attendances averaging a few hundred per game year after year even with your claimed 100% increase 2005 to 2006, this is where there appears to be one of a few apparent disconnects with the CSL. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish the league ill, I just think you are putting the cart before the horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard I see an initial franchise fee relating to the revenue/profit potential for the franchise and serving as a natural regulator for expansion. From what I can gather, with attendances averaging a few hundred per game year after year even with your claimed 100% increase 2005 to 2006, this is where there appears to be one of a few apparent disconnects with the CSL. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish the league ill, I just think you are putting the cart before the horse. But if owners are willing to put up that franchise fee to show commitment to the league, players and fans, what does it matter whether the cart is before the horse? Cary, the why I read your last post, are you saying the league was more solid in 2005 than 2006, despite the increase in attendance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 I suggest no owner in the CSL is breaking even let alone making a profit but with those franchise fees the league office is doing OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Ivan, Good point, I worded it incorrectly - the CSL is much more solid in 2006 than it was in 2005. Richard, Unfortunately, most teams in most professional sports leagues in North America, lose money - the franchise fee is a reflection of a) the opportunity to be profitbable and the future value of the franchise. In the case of the CSL, we are very optimistic on both these fronts. While some of our teams in fact are profitable/break-even, all are close - in other words, 'the potential to make money is there' for every one of our 12 clubs. Other leagues, with bigger payrolls and bigger travel costs have no potential to make money. Hence the demise of leagues like the NASL, former CSL, CBL and IHL to name a few. As well, the comment, the teams are losing, but the league office is making money, is not logical. The league office is simply a product of the investment of the clubs - they own the league, and the league office. Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 Ivan, Good point, I worded it incorrectly - the CSL is much more solid in 2006 than it was in 2005. Richard, Unfortunately, most teams in most professional sports leagues in North America, lose money - the franchise fee is a reflection of a) the opportunity to be profitbable and the future value of the franchise. In the case of the CSL, we are very optimistic on both these fronts. While some of our teams in fact are profitable/break-even, all are close - in other words, 'the potential to make money is there' for every one of our 12 clubs. Other leagues, with bigger payrolls and bigger travel costs have no potential to make money. Hence the demise of leagues like the NASL, former CSL, CBL and IHL to name a few. As well, the comment, the teams are losing, but the league office is making money, is not logical. The league office is simply a product of the investment of the clubs - they own the league, and the league office. Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The clubs own a franchise or in other words certain explicit rights not shares in the league or have I completely misunderstood what the CSL arrangement is. I own a franchise myself (not soccer) and I most definitely do not as a result own any part of the franchisor organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Richard, That is correct, when a franchisee is in good standing for 3 years - they become an 'equity owner' and 'owner of the league'. The CSL is currently owned by a number of our franchisees. Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 An interesting concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 quote:Originally posted by CSL Commissioner The concept of 'what do you expect for this kind of franchise fee' is the wrong attitude, and it is not how league's operate... Whoa, wait just a gosh-darned minute. The very first question any prospective sports franchise investor is going to ask is "what do I get for my money?" It is a totally legitimate question and to suggest otherwise is insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. You are free to reply with long discussions of the intangible benfits of sports franchise ownership and future potential or whatever but you cannot seriously expect anyone to invest money in ANY league without at least asking the question! Now, as far as I can tell, what you get for your money is mostly "future prospects". Not exactly the pyramid scheme approach taken by some leagues (where the only profitability was supported by new franchise fees) but close enough to make your league unattractive to clubs in established leagues. Right now it seems that all you are offering is a brand name with limited recognition. I admire the gall to call yourselves a national league. I applaud the goal of a national league. I see no way that you will attract any sort of involvement on this coast in particular until you can offer the soccer community in BC tangible benefitss. Partnerships with national media would be a good start. League-wide sponsorships would help. From what you have written in this thread (and thanks for taking the time to do this BTW) your league is working on these very deals. I look forward to following your progress. Until then however I fail to see why any club or organization outside of Ontario would invest in your league, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 quote:Originally posted by ted Whoa, wait just a gosh-darned minute. The very first question any prospective sports franchise investor is going to ask is "what do I get for my money?" It is a totally legitimate question and to suggest otherwise is insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. And the answer any investor will be looking for is the potential for profits, both from potential revenues, and what the chance of the value of the asset (the team) growing is. Yes, an investor invests in the future potential. For an existing non-profit club, it's a different situation. I think the problem is people don't seem to understand the teams ARE the league. I guess it's because of how soccer is run, where the league operations are run by an association or something that is separate from the teams. But at the pro level, again the teams are the league. In the NHL, the 30 teams each own 1/30th of NHL Inc. (the league offices/operations). Bettman is basically the CEO of NHL Inc. and works for the owners. We call teams "franchises", but they are not franchises as one would think of in terms of McDonalds. As for the franchise fee, the reality is that it has to be max. 10% of what any potential owner is willing to invest. So if it's $100 000, prospective owners should be prepared to invest about $1-million over the first 3-5 years. Otherwise, there's no point. And yes, the franchise fee should be reflective up the value of current teams, along with a premium for potential profits. Now, yes, the league office job is to secure league-wide sponsorships and promotions, and help teams with local sponsorship/promotions. But, it's up to the teams to supply the necessary funds for the league-wide promotions, and to invest in a front-office staff where all teams benefit, instead of each team going off on it's own. So instead of each team hiring part-time some high school kid to pretend to do sponsorship sales, they can hire 2-3 full-time professional staff that has experience and contacts to actually sell sponsorships. Anyway, it seems like the PCSL is an off-season/secondary league. It seems like the real focus is on the VMSL and FVSL. Is this accurate or not? What I'm trying to get at is, lets say there is eventually a BC division in the CSL, I think a realistic target would be maybe max. 6 teams, like Victoria, 3 in greater Vancouver and 2 in the interior somewhere. Obviously the league will have to be in the summer. Will this be taken seriously? Will there be issues with the winter leagues? Will top players switch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Ted, Our national vision, and the lack of any other pro soccer league in the country, is reflected in our name. We are proud of it. I don't think it's gall, I think its confidence. Partnerships, greater media expsoure, and greater team by team attendance will come with growth in the league, making sure our owners are strong, (both financially and professionally), attendance increases, and we continue our conversation with people like yourself in other parts of the country. Teams have recently paid our franchise fees, I think they are very resonably, and feel good that within 12 months they will be well above the current price tag. The greatest challenge with teams in B.C. for instance, is not franchise fees, it is travel costs. We would not consider a Western team, we would only entertain a 'Western Division'. As I expressed earlier, when you buy a stock, or a franchise, the value is determined by the market - so to with CSL clubs. Thanks for the feedback. (I like that these threats are continuing) Cary Kaplan quote:Originally posted by ted Whoa, wait just a gosh-darned minute. The very first question any prospective sports franchise investor is going to ask is "what do I get for my money?" It is a totally legitimate question and to suggest otherwise is insulting to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. You are free to reply with long discussions of the intangible benfits of sports franchise ownership and future potential or whatever but you cannot seriously expect anyone to invest money in ANY league without at least asking the question! Now, as far as I can tell, what you get for your money is mostly "future prospects". Not exactly the pyramid scheme approach taken by some leagues (where the only profitability was supported by new franchise fees) but close enough to make your league unattractive to clubs in established leagues. Right now it seems that all you are offering is a brand name with limited recognition. I admire the gall to call yourselves a national league. I applaud the goal of a national league. I see no way that you will attract any sort of involvement on this coast in particular until you can offer the soccer community in BC tangible benefitss. Partnerships with national media would be a good start. League-wide sponsorships would help. From what you have written in this thread (and thanks for taking the time to do this BTW) your league is working on these very deals. I look forward to following your progress. Until then however I fail to see why any club or organization outside of Ontario would invest in your league, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSL Commissioner Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Ted, I meant 'threads' not 'threats' (typo in my last line of previous email) Cary Kaplan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Why not just start small western divisions (ie, Victoria/Vancouver Division, Okanagan Division, Edmonton Division, Calgary Division, Sakatchewan Division, Manitoba Division) with smaller franchise fees to get it going out here. It could be as simple as 4 teams in each division, with the winners of each eventually playing each other for the chance to represent Western Canada. I think a big obstacle right now, is that the CSL has been developing for years but without much western exposure. So while a $150k franchise fee in Ontario makes a lot of sense, having the same fee in Edmonton or Vancouver doesn't. Especially since an Edmonton or Vancouver franchise would be playing in essentially a 'new' league and going up against the established AMSL, VMSL, PCSL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 "it seems like the PCSL is an off-season/secondary league" Try asking people within the Whitecaps organisation if they think the PCSL is an an off-season secondary league. Time to give your head a shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Robin Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 So looks like the Labour Day weekend games have been set... from Lynx media release. So not could still be three games in three days, but not for the Lynx with them playing Friday and Monday in this plus their USL game on Sunday. Strange that one of the finalists will be decided Friday night. London City or Ottawa SAI will have to do the three days/three games thing. LYNX ADVANCE IN OPEN CUP PLAY The Lynx moved on to the semi-finals of the CSL Open Canada Cup with a hard-fought 1-0 victory over Hamilton Serbians of the Ontario Soccer League on Sunday evening at Brian Timmis Stadium in Hamilton. Rookie Matt Palleschi netted the winner for the Lynx, who join the Brampton Stallions, London AEK and Ottawa St. Anthony Italia in the penultimate round of the annual tournament. London City of the CSL also qualifies as host and will play in a wild-card match. The semi-final and final rounds are scheduled to take place from September 1-4 in London at Cove Road Stadium. The Lynx will kick off the weekend with an 8:38 PM kick-off versus London AEK in the first semi-final. Saturday sees London City play Ottawa St. Anthony Italia in the wild-card game at 7:30 PM, with the winner meeting the Brampton Stallions on Sunday evening at 7:30 PM in semi-final #2. The two winners of the semi-finals will then face off on Monday, September 4 at 4:00 PM in the Open Canada Cup Championship final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Sad to see the travel issue get flogged again like a dead horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.