That's not going to happen until salaries can be paid competitively, which won't happen until large television deals can be made. TV and broadcast rights are where the big money is. I don't know how long it will take until soccer draws a large TV audience, but it could be as soon as 10 more years.
We can't get a big TV contract until we have big stars...we can't get big stars until we get a big TV contract.................
There are a lot of people that have a passing interest in the team/league and could become fans with a higher quality of play. Obviously filling every team with superstars would lead to a much larger deal, but that isn't feasible. Spending a little more to keep the best domestic talent is, and I think it would still help quite a bit.
It's not sustainable unless they get a better TV deal. I think we agree on that point, just not necessarily which comes first. I also think that the DP approach as currently structured may be enough to get the juice to drive higher ratings, but every team (or almost every team) has to go for the full complement of big-name stars. You can't have a club that has never signed one (Colorado), or has seemingly given up on even trying (Chivas). I also agree with you about the NHL's position at the time. But, as you point out, the NHL had a history in big markets that MLS does not. The NHL was a bet on historical factors. MLS would be a bet on potential, but with a track record of dismal national TV ratings weighing it down.
My only question is if Les is indeed in charge, do we get hard liquor and bars like Toyota Center for us non prawn sandwich types
My comment about it getting worse is mostly rooted in being 2nd fiddle to a team in the same league. Obviously we would be second fiddle to the Rockets, but the amount of cash needed in MLS pales in comparison to the NBA. I agree, things have not been bad, but I want an owner that puts us first when it comes to the league we are in.
My concern, and it may be unfounded, is that he won't put us much of anywhere on his radar; ala Kraft. I suspect this is a buy of the venue with a team thrown in for pennies on the dollar. I mean, consider the estimated value would place the stadium in excess of the team worth.
I do think we agree on the TV money is needed to increase player acquisition. I just don't see ownership making a bet of 4-5 times their current cost on the hope that the TV money follows.
That's a reasonable view. But then why do you think a broadcaster would make a big money bet on a league with a record of poor national TV ratings on the hope that major league ratings follow?
My only two questions for Mr. Alexander: 1. Do you like palm trees? 2. What are your thoughts on Space City blue?
That's what they do though. Furthermore a 50 million dollar contract is a small one to the big four, whereas 4-5 times current spend to an owner is unfathomable. Networks do not pay current ad value for a product on a long term contract. If they wanted to do that, they would not buy it because it showed no growth potential. NHL is one example, as are things such as the Longhorn network, ESPN's Crickets rights, the list goes on. Now, I don't know if a network will do that with MLS, because as I said they have to buy into the upside. If they don't then MLS will be stuck as it is for at least the next 7+ years. However, there are several indicators that would lend itself toward a jump in TV revenue. No network has focused on actually promoting the product beyond a few commercials. And yet, the ratings have at worse stayed static and at best have grown. NBC specifically is almost 50% above their leaked projections and 100% above Fox from last year. The demographic information is still the most favorable among sports aside from the NFL. And in the eyes of competitive networks looking for programming, national team soccer has proven that big audiences for the sport are possible. In fact, bigger numbers for MLS are possible (just look at the 400k + numbers with Olympic lead-ins and Euro lead-ins). If a network, using NBC as an example, looks and says we can spend 50 million and invest 10 million in production and marketing, you only need about double current to justify that number. NHL as an example is getting 100k-150k for 30 second spots and only averaged a .8 (1.6 playoffs) two years ago for regular season (if memory serves). A 50 million dollar spend and 40 televised games makes your ROI about 1.25 million/game. With ONLY 15 commercials at half time that is 83k for a commercial spot. Consider they have more than 15- 30 second spots plus advertising on scoreboard graphics and such, you aren't talking a huge leap for a major network to pay 50 million plus if they thought they could get a double the houselholds within 3-5 years. Especially with the demo MLS currently holds; that equals higher cost advertising. The issue they have right now, is no one puts money in because the networks do not pay enough to be concerned about the loss. Pay a few million a year and see what happens. They are not invested. At some point, maybe 2014 maybe 2019, a network will step up on a contract and pay. Once they do they have an interest in promoting the game. Then you see ratings move.
That may be the unfortunate scenario for us, regardless of how much MLS loosens the purse strings. We'll see. I understand your point about how NBC SN could think about an MLS contract. My point is that they had a reasonable historic basis to think that way about the NHL as a national TV product. They don't have that basis to think about MLS similarly. Neither does ESPN. I'm just not anywhere as optimistic as you are about assumptions on that front. But I hope you're right.
Well they are currently at about 30 million a year in total TV rights. The ESPN and NBC portion is already at 19 million of that. I don't think it is too unrealistic to see that double to 38 million in 2014 (with another 18 million coming from others source online, foreign rights and spanish contract). That puts them into the 50-60 million range. I think if someone like Les believes that is realistic the team is a sound investment. If it isn't the team really isn't a winning buy. You are already near capacity on average attendance; you cannot raise seat prices to keep up with salary increases every year (yeah I know they don't directly pay salary but they have a capital call equal to the budget number each year - so same thing), and you have little room to grow in stadium revenue. TV has to be it (and that could include local).
You never know, and that's why it's really hard to say what will happen and if the results will be good or bad for the team should this Alexander deal go down. If all that happens is that another name "owns" the team but the day to day people don't change (much) then that will likely be the best case scenario. If on the other hand he decides to come in and be another Crane that cleans house top to bottom, brings in his own people that may or may not know what to do with how things work in MLS and times should get interesting pretty damn quick around here.
No your right, everything we have talked about is all conjecture. He could be great. He also could not give a flying crap. Only time will tell. I will say this though, if he comes in and cleans house my concerns will fly through the roof. I know some people here don't care for CC, but regardless of personalities there is no combination of FO and coach/GM that has done more with less than what we have. If someone wants to change that I will be concerned. To the point where I will hold off on season ticket renewal until things shake out. Rather, I would love to see what our FO and Dom can do with more resources.
I'm renewing sometime this weekend because it'll take a whole lot to keep me from a stadium for my local team. But importing the NBA arena atmosphere could do it. I can't even begin to articulate how much I hate the NBA arena atmosphere. Hate. Words have meaning. Hate. We'll see how that goes, among other things that may change. I just hope that next year we don't look back on how comparatively good we had it under AEG -- especially not the SGs.
agreed. hate. hate, hate, hate! if it came down to a. go to a rockets game at toyota center, or b. anything else on planet earth, i'd choose b every time.
I know nothing about Alexander, but I assume he's a smart man and I'm guessing he understands the difference between NBA and its arena atmosphere and soccer and the soccer culture. If he doesn't see it (and again, I wonder if he's ever been to a Dynamo game) I'm sure he will listen to people in the Dynamo organization that will explain it to him.
One would hope. But you hit on the reason behind my earlier comment . . . that assumes he keeps the Dynamo organization intact and doesn't bring in a bunch of NBA sports execs.