if iirc from earlier in this thread rsl has said something to the effect that 'the new dp rule is great, but unfortunately we're not the sort of franchise that's in a position to take much advantage of it.' houston's attendance (what you see in the stadium, not what people fawn over on the 'announced attendance' thread) is nothing to write home about. you're right about the jersey deal though ( $12.7 million over three-years, with two additional option years) which imo should be rich enough to put them in the black.
i don't overvalue meaningless exhibitions at all. lots of other people buy tickets for them, though. as for your notion that pep is mostly investing in mls, i get to snicker too... btw, do we know who brought pep and sum together? was there a personal connection somewhere? i think the deal is good for two reasons: i) it puts a bit of welcome cash in the pockets of i/o's. ii) it shows sum to be of interest to the outside world as an investment, which in itself offers other interesting possibilities for the future (a publicly traded sum?)
I'm not sure about the tax consequences, but I thought you had a clever idea; if they wanted to put the money into DPs, this mechanism would indeed allow them to insure the money went into that payroll, and since it's an allocation, I agree that I don't think it requires any change to the CBA. He was responding to my point that it would be hard to insure the money was used for it's intended purpose -- and as I said above his suggestion works IMO. Keep in mind, though they have overlapping ownership these are separate corporate entities. Once SUM hands its owners the checks, I had wondered how they could be certain the money would ever find its way to MLS, LLC for DPs -- even if the majority wanted to do it, how could they be sure everyone would, and how could they do it without impacting the CBA? A distribution from SUM, a simultaneous cash call at MLS, LLC and a grant of equal allocation dollars to each team would accomplish that. Again, he's not suggesting it would happen, but it is responsive to my suggestion when I (wrongly) said I wasn't sure it even could happen.
i understand the context, but my question was equally specific. cash calls from league to i/o's may not be doable in the manner and for the purpose you describe.
Let's talk about Dallas. It's entirely possible, nay, LIKELY, that FC Dallas loses money. But that's not really the issue. The issue is whether the Hunts make a profit off of the team. If FCD loses $500,000 but they make $1M from controlling the stadium and the fields, then does FCD make money or not? It's practically a metaphysical question on one level, but on another level, the answer is of course they make money. The Hunts' bank accounts increase a half mil every year due to their control of FCD. Any investor would look at the situation and make that judgment. It's not just MLS. The Carolina Hurricanes' owners have one entity that controls the Canes, and supposedly the only year they made money was the year they won the Stanley Cup. But they also have another entity that controls the RBC Center. Without the hockey team they don't control the RBC Center. I'll bet you anything that the Canes lose money but the arena management company makes more.
Well, without seeing the document there's no way to be sure, but MLS, LLC makes capital calls to fund payroll (and other costs) now. If MLS, LLC has the ability to sign the DPs and take that liability for those salaries on at the corporate level, I would think they could make a capital call to cover those costs. And capital calls are usually made by the general partner or managing member correct? -- I'd be very surprised if they required unanimous consent from the other shareholders to make one. Is that certain? Of course not. But it's a colorable argument IMO and far more plausible than anything I came up with. Colorable enough IMO that for discussion purposes I acknowledge there may be a way to do this -- if the requisite majority needed to approve the sale of the stake in SUM in the first place were so inclined.
good points. i'm still not sure about the hunts at the end of the day making money, but let's say they do. that leaves the problem that with such structure, outside investors don't see an attractive buying opportunity. for example, one problem the mets might be having is that wilpons want to sell a piece of the baseball team (a money loser) without including their stake in the separate sny network (a money maker). in terms of the providence equity investment, the fields around php don't figure in the equation. imo providence equity is looking at this deal because they've identified sum as the best vehicle to get soccer exposure. this is an equity firm that owns a piece of the ironmen competitions, for example. soccer is an entertainment product to which they'd like some exposure. but if sum dealt only with mls commercial rights, i don't think the investment would be nearly as attractive.
you may be right. the only difference is that while mls makes capital calls to fund players' salaries, that applies to the salaries the league pays. (which makes mls a sort of 'peter pays paul' gag. the league pays the salaries but the i/o's pay the league so it can pay the salaries). dp's aren't on the league's payroll, though. the whole idea was to let i/o's act independently. i do agree about the weight of a majority that might make such a move possible. i'd say you'd need a pretty strong majority in this case. and as i said earlier, if i/o's want to spend the extra cash on players, you don't need the cash call->allocations route to make it happen. but where it's a case of overcoming marginal resistance, the imposition of a cash call might be the best procedure. of course i'm speculating throughout.
I didn't include Dallas in the big spenders list based on the Hunt family approach that has been well documented. https://soccer.fakesigi.com/ownership-split-on-salary-cap.html
So you went with "well documented" conjecture and memes that FakeSigi quotes instead of the MLSPU's well documented salary numbers. It's probably not the choice I would've made, but I prefer to argue from a fact-based approach.
People forget that Kansas City was owned by HSG back when they had 2 of the 5 at the time (I think) players league-wide who were being paid more than the league maximum. That'd be Josh Wolff and Eddie Johnson. The Hunts may pinch pennies here and there, but there's really not a lot of evidence that they've done so with regards to player acquisition. They certainly haven't spent with reckless abandon, but they've also shown a willingness to write checks when the technical staff has asked.
I put it down to reading comprehension. I'm not sure where you get anything regarding "big spending" in the quote in the blog Sure, they're pushing for a modest increase in the Salary Cap as opposed to a more aggressive increase. That's a business decision. It says nothing whatsoever about their willingness to spend. Anson Dorrance has often been quoted that he'd like to see the NCAA go to limited one-time substitutions like the rest of the soccer playing world. That would appear to be at odds with the line substitutions you see at UNC games where players are subbing in and out at seemingly every stoppage in play. But it makes sense if you approach it as playing by the rules that are in effect.
The statement from that post is inaccurate. The person in this thread who confirmed that SUM is a separate company is correct. From MLS:
I did read what you wrote, which is the reason why I took pains not to rip you, only the things you quoted.
i honestly don't see what you mean. i don't get the distinction. i'm perfectly willing to applaud the hunts' commitment to mls. i'm even appreciative of the krafts. these i/o's have hung in from the start, made up any operating losses, and even signed some players. but to count denilson's cameo as an indication of an i/o who likes to sign dp's, or to overlook that ferreira absolutely earned the dp status so that we're hardly looking at a proactive move, or to set so much by two players who were on kc ages ago, is to stretch the evidence a little thin.
Ok, so SUM has nothing to do with MLS LLC at least legally. They are just two independent companies that have the same owners (Mostly the same), got it.
Crew Stadium LLC makes money, while the Columbus Crew might lose money. The Stadium charges rent to the team for use of the Field on gameday and the Stadium keeps all the money from Beer, food and parking. Right now Crew Stadium is the only outdoor concert venue in town. I also read that the Stadium formed a alliance just for concerts with other MLS Stadiums.
https://soccer.fakesigi.com/mls_closes_sale_of_soccer_united_marketing_providence_equity_llc.html MLS closes sale of Soccer United Marketing share to Providence Equity Partners LLC Done deal back in March. Thought it would go toward the NY2 project but now that MLS exec spoke that the ownership group will be responsible for the stadium and expansion fee. (see below) Once a stadium location is set, MLS will select an ownership group, said Courtemanche said. The new owners would have to commit to build a new stadium and pay a franchise fee. Where does the money go? Maybe dividend for the owners?
part will probably go into a SUM war chest, and the rest dispersed to investors. Sum has probably already cleared its debt to the likes of Kraft, but if not, that debt will most likely be payed off.
SUM lost out to traffic for the Gold Cup marketing rights http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2012/...-rights-to-2013-concacaf-gold-cup/#more-37621 http://www.concacaf.com/page/ConfederationDetail/0,,12813~2993625,00.html