FC Dallas should think about using the money for a roof, as weird as that might seem. It would help them as much as anything. __________________ This.......... Been saying for a long time. Roofs matter in certain locations
Excellent work here. But you forget the real reason: Because the people in the east parking lot need a little more shade.
Investing in salaries makes sense if you can grow the quality enough to attract more viewers on TV and therefore increase the ratings and the value of the TV contracts.
But not just any roof: it needs a roof that can lift the entire pitch and stands and walk them 20 miles closer to downtown Dallas on game day, and then treck back to Frisco afterwards. I've heard it's the only way attendance numbers could ever grow in Dallas. .
It should be mentioned that the Whitecaps have one of the highest payrolls in the league. Whether they're spending that money well.....just look at the league table. They also have 2 DPs if not quite being on the level of Beckham, Henry, Keane etc. All of which is proving there's plenty of money floating around in the league outside of some locations, Metro Vancouver itself isn't much bigger than Metro Las Vegas and is managing to spend this money.
That is correct. It is not a perfect match (which is why the number will be less than 5 mil per team). However, point is they could do it if they wanted with the "MLS" share.
So then it needs a roof with a propeler on top, like a helicopter. Great idea! It kills two birds with one stone: it moves the stadium closer to Dallas and at the same time the downdraft keeps the fans & players cool during hot days.
Oh please, next you're going to tell me that FIFA is planning flying iPhones to create shade at a mythical Qatar World Cup in 10 years or so.
i would urge caution in interpreting the effects of this deal. the reporter writes 'sum has considered....' which to me is an attribution of intent that requires a source being named. without it i have no idea what justifies the statement. the vast majority of mls teams lose money. several mls teams have lost considerable amounts every year beginning in '96. those i/o's might be less eager to cover the losses now that their other financial interests pbl are doing less well than at any point in the history of the league. it makes sense that some i/o's would be glad to receive some cash to ease their burden. cash for new players? the (few) rich teams don't need it. the teams with negative cash flow will use the infusion to plug the deficit. maybe a couple of 'bubble' teams (those currently around break-even) might think of putting some of the cash toward players. when all's said and done a handful of teams might put three or four million into players. hardly the stuff to revolutionize the league and make ratings leap. i'd read any whispers about 'new players' as a bit of pr. but imo new players are hardly anywhere near the core motive of this move.
i suspect cash calls can occur only for well defined circumstances and purposes. i don't expect the use of cash calls as part of a maneuver to force i/o's to buy more expensive players would fit the bill.
ok we keep going done a rabbit hole I don't think will happen. But for arguments sake, if the I/O that overlap want to use the money for salaries, and they want to ensure equity in doing so, it would have to be in the form of an increased cap -paid for by the league - or in allocation - also paid for by the league. Since it is temporary influx of cash, it makes more sense as allocation. I was simply explaining one possible scenario by which the league could accomplish that and still respect the legal differences between the two entities and different set of owners (SUM and MLS). There are a myriad of other possible ways to handle it if the I/Os want to. As a side note, capital calls are for defined purposes but can also be voted on by the board and or partners under most agreements - again if they want to they can. But will stress again, while they CAN make it happen, people are jumping to conclusions. I think it more likely they will cash out or invest in a long term program (youth, media).
This was a fact 5 years ago. Is it a fact now? No. No ones knows for sure. It's reasonable to assume that LA and Seattle make money based on their revenue ($30+ million). It's also reasonable to assume that Portland, Philidelphia, Toronto, NY, Vancouver, and Sporting KC are profitable. Some simple calculations point to these teams having revenue in the $15 to $22 million range. Dallas, Chicago, and the others aren't that far behind. So your statement is opinion, because non of us know for sure.
Many professional sports teams in all leagues lose money operationally. As long as it not something insane like 50 million a year like sometimes you hear in the NHL, NBA or MLB for a specific franchise the owners care far more about the increasing resale value of their franchise. Nobody in MLS at this point probably even come close to losing an enormous amount of money its why you never hear any owners looking to sell the teams. They all know any losses incurred now will be paid for when they resell the team 5 or 10 years down the road.
and i was simply pointing that imo such a scenario isn't plausible. note that if the partners want to use the cash for dp's, there's no need for the roundabout route of cash infusion -> cash call -> allocations. by the way, imo this equity firm is more likely interested in the marketing properties related to things like barca summer tours and nt's, than in anything having to do with mls.
mls teams basically have a stop-loss financial structure by keeping costs much lower than other pro sports. but as soon as you turn on a cusa game on tv , notice the place is a morgue, and then see the announced attendance at 12k... you begin to suspect that cash flow isn't exactly positive. which, year after year and with some of his other financial investments in the tank as well right now, might give an i/o pause. i say cusa, but insert as well col, fcd, clb, chi, dcu, ne, and even rbny with their ghost attendance numbers, not to mention the galaxy's rather sparse 'sellouts.' imo that's a lot of folks who wouldn't turn down a check, which they wouldn't think of spending on players. as for why i/o's don't sell, i'm not sure it's that easy to do right now, although i also agree that the notion of watching the asset value go up is a good enticement to stay on.
rsl are already on the record as saying they can't keep up with big market teams. imo it takes quite a financial leap of faith to say either texas franchise is making money. but i realize i'm stepping on a lot of folks' favorite mantras.
I think you greatly overvalue meaningless exhibitions by a Spanish soccer team. They are not worth that type of money. Providence Equity Partners can make other deals if they are bent on investing in foreign soccer. The key here is MLS. You don't buy into SUM without 100% believing in the future of MLS. That's what Providence Equity Partners is mostly investing in. So your dismissal of MLS in any deal is laughable.
It depends on who they are talking to. If MLS LLC and the owners are talking to investors, Expansion candidates or friends, then they are all making money. If they are talking to the IRS or the players Union, then shit is hard and they are all losing money.
Making a profit =/= keeping up with Seattle and LA. Also, why wouldn't you believe Houston could be close to if not profitable? They have a decent average attendance and a jersey sponsor worth a couple million...next year I think they are profitable no question unless they really go crazy on a DP.