Man City Owners Pondering Bid for NY II; Red Bull Having Second Thoughts?

Red Bull could have voiced concerns MUCH earlier if they didn't want another team in NY. If there are multiple big money foreign owners looking here then NYRB can sell easily. I have no problem with that, but this is all talking about the "suggestions" that NYRB are looking at divesting the club.

 

Let me know if this is discussed elsewhere, but what are the MLS rules about selling and moving franchises? Garber talks about getting $100m for the next franchise, but why can't an existing franchisee sell for less? And if they sold, would they get all the money, or does MLS? I.e. are owners really just operators or members of an ownership group, so that an increase in value of a franchise goes to the group, not the individual operator?

 

No.
It would destroy the league.

 

In the future, MLS DPs will less and less be seen as "aging" players, but simply as players (and well-paid ones).

New ownership groups in the league will have the ability to help drive and (further) create that reality.

 

Man, this thread is already full of stupid.

Seeing as how Metrostars had no where near the amount of world reputation as ManU, I'd say it i nothing like that. It is probably more akin to VT Vasas being reamed Videoton FC due to being sponsored by an electrical goods manufacturer.

Follow the business plan of a bunch of people (insanely rich and successful people no less) that have successfully taken a major cash losing niche league and made it nearly profitable or follow the plan of someone that likely thinks adjustable rate mortgages are a good deal. Tough choice here.

Hopefully the internet service providers in your area all realize that your house is too far out of the way to provide service to.

This will allow us to not have to listen to you bang on about FFP all the time.

 

Seeing as this is a legitimate question I didn't want to lump you in with the last post. They could sell an existing franchise and they have done that several times in the past few years. The thing is that just because you buy a team doesn't give you the right to move the team. MLS has stated that the NY franchise is going for 100 million. So if you want to get into NY that is what you have to spend, regardless of whether or not you purchase an existing franchise and then want to move it to NY. The BOG would veto that move in a heartbeat so it wouldn't make sense for the buyer.

As far as the money aspect, your guess is as good as mine.

 

yep. having some extravagant foreign investor's whos primary interest is another football team in another league who will treat their MLS team as a 2nd class citizen and only as a means to "extend" their brand (which many in their target audience may not like) seems to be a winning strategy.

Chivas USA

nothing says pathetic like making your league chock full of minor league affiliates.

MLS ownership should be local and focused on MLS ... that is the key to success. it doesn't take hordes of cash, it takes competence and caring first and foremost about domestic soccer and MLS.

 

Is this even a reliable newspaper?

 

Only you nerds would believe any story from any of these unprofessional british RAGS!!!

 

#postsfrom1975

 

An existing franchise probably would sell for less. I think the last two existing teams that were bought were Chicago and whatever investment the guy in DC made (did Houston's thing with Alexander fall through? I forget) and they were for less than that. Garber talks about getting $100M for the next franchise if it's in New York. Very, very unlikely that team #20 in another market or an existing franchise that gets sold would fetch $100M. The New York market is what makes the hoped-for price of that franchise higher than an existing one or an expansion team in another market.

And the Board of Governors approves investors and potential relocations.

This discussion goes way back. Short answer: MLS team "owners" (referred to as "investor-operators") own stock in MLS, LLC and have ownership groups that own the rights to stage MLS games in their markets, subject to their franchise agreements (which none of us have ever seen). We had a long discussion not too long ago about whether or not the "value" of MLS, LLC stock is different in Columbus than in Los Angeles, but we have no real way to know, because the stock isn't publicly traded and its price isn't on the crawl at the bottom of CNBC or something.

But if you "sell" the Columbus Crew to someone, that person pays x amount for your MLS, LLC stock (and, we would presume, your SUM stock, if you were cashing out entirely) and some for the actual, tangible assets of the Columbus Crew itself. We don't know for certain (because we don't have copies of the LLC agreement) what percent of proceeds get divvied up among the other stockholders (if it does) or what. We don't know for certain how much (if at all) the Portland Timbers benefit from the proposed $100M expansion fee that a second NY team would pay. MLS, LLC is a private company and doesn't have to be that transparent.

But if you got in back in, say, 1997 and bought what became the Chicago Fire for $5M, and sold it, say, 10 years later for $35M, I'm going to guess you realized at least some of that profit. The rising profile of MLS (and the fact there have been people willing to pay $10M, then $30M, then $40M to get into the club) has helped boost the resale value of franchises. That's what you hope for as a team owner (at least, that's one of the things you hope for).

 

I agree. Football clubs should be owned by local, committed investors, like those noted Mancunians the Glazers. Who would be beloved if only their club, whose name escapes me at the moment, would ever win the league or a big trophy or something while they owned them.

And by "chock full," you would mean "two out of twenty."

 

and as you well know i despise the glazer ownership as does much of the Man Utd fanbase. and because somebody did it wrong in the EPL that makes it right for MLS?

even one minor league affiliate set up is one too many for a league that claims to be "major league" and has aspirations to be "one of the best leagues in the world".

how many Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Livepool fans are there in NYC compared to Man City fans do you think? you think fans of any of those other EPL teams are going to cheer for a local affiliate of Man City?

and let's not even get started about how "middle eastern" ownership might play with a certain percentage of people in NYC and certain kinds of media. as sad and unfortunate as it might be, the middle east and islam and oil oligarchs don't exactly go down will with large portions of the american public.

MLS has already has a NY team run by foreign big money owners who have less than dedicated sports priorities and are looking to "extend" their brand ... how's that worked out?

does MLS really want two NY teams with ZERO local/domestic ownership representation?

 

Thanks for the info! I wonder if the AEG sale will end up giving up more facts. I'm also thinking that there are financial reasons behind the scenes that motivate Chivas to stay in the game.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but, they may take a totally different approach than Chivas, and do a much better job at it.

 

Yeah, there's nothing about Man City's vision that screams "ethnic pandering over performance," unlike Vergara's "vision". I'm not a big fan of satellite franchises in general, but Chivas is not an apt comparison.

 

I just don't think you can understate the value of a proper ownership group. (Florida Marlins, half of the NHL)

 

you think most of Chivas USA's failure is down to ethnic pandering? i'd say it is mostly A. not really giving much of a shite about Chivas USA versus the main focus of his attention Chivas d Guad and B. alienating a vast swath of your target fan base by branding that appeals to only a small segment of your target audience while actively alienating a larger part of that target audience. C. the stigma of being nothing more than a 2nd rate "feeder" team for a "bigger, better" team in another league.

all of these issues will exist with any Man City feeder club version of NYC2. same for a PSG feeder club version of NYC2 except maybe less on the 2nd point as most domestic soccer fans don't really have Ligue 1 allegiances.

 

Ahem, post #5...

 

Perfectly said, 'bismark. Every other owner that takes over a club in another country leaves the name and brand as it is, but it's not that way in MLS, as we've seen with the Red Bulls and Sporting. But, no one can doubt the new owners committment. That's not in question. I'm just afraid we're going to see an influx of new owners and a league full of replicas.

I'd rather see a new brand come out that connects with the city and fans they play for, and if a new owner takes over at the Revolution or the Crew, we still have those brands with a more committed ownership. No more foreign brand extensions, please!

 

There is a very easy way to prevent an owner like the one that owns the Florida Marlins. Promotion/Relegation.

 

Thankfully selling consumer goods & other clubs imaging rights haven't gone over so well here in MLS that it won't happen again, imo. Especially the success that some newer teams have found off the field, I think its clear what the fans want from their club... Authenticity. A chance to get behind their local team with unwavering civic pride, which doesn't come in another teams image rights and product.

 

Just like Man City destroyed the EPL. Oh wait, it's thriving.