FTR: 1- yes, Liverpool has my comment on MLS about right. I think they can now see the day when there's some black ink for the league as a whole. It'll obviously be sometime post-Harrison, probably post-2008 when most of the teams with a good shot at a stadium should have it, and the SJ and KC situations should hopefully be 'dealt with' one way or another. 2 - They're clearly aiming higher than that. The league owners--especially new ones--are interested in year-on-year profits and/or franchise revaluaiton. It's hard to say where precisely that starts, but history makes us believe that once it kicks in, it goes quickly. Hence the NASCAR example. I'm sure they're looking for TV revenue, even though they may never get it (and need to be prepared for that eventuality). They'll also be looking to sell expensive tickets to glitzy (relative to today) matches with name performers some time down the road. 3- I can still legitimately see Chivas going either way. On their one-off huge crowds, remember they pay big moiney to rent the Coliseum and in appearance fees for Mexican clubs (even if they can get a deal on the original Chivas, they must pay the opponent). They probably don't pay much of anything at this point to rent the HDC, so it's a good stadium situation, but having your players perpetually cost more than the US counterpart with equal talent will be an ongoing issue until they develop Mex-Am players and be a decent team that way. 4- You can understand the Torontans' viewpoint here. They're being asked to support a structure that in order to work divides the market in two and is in all likelihood redistributive to the small markets. The same thing is basically being asked of Montreal and Vancouver. Toronto, if it's going to be in a redistributive league, wants to be in one where the other cities have similar means. That's not just ego, that's interests. The sacrifice and the risk MLSE would be asked to make would be greater, and for smaller reward. 5- Also, as a debating position being asked to prove metaphysically that Toronto would be anything better than a mediocre MLS team while simultaneously being asked to metaphysically prove that a hypothetical CSL would not be either a failure or a basically unproductive (for Canadian socce as a whole) semipro league is tilting the field. 6- Saying that "Toronto MLS is just speculation, too" is skirting the issue. There's a 50/50 shot or maybe slightly better that Toronto will quite soon be presented with a very real choice: a concrete offer from MLS, or a hypothetical Canadian league somewhere down the line. Since I think we both know what MLSE is going to do, and I think it's fairly obvious what they should do if they were only thinking of themselves, the question devolves to: should someone stop them? And why?
Except that I clearly stated "Greenville would never even remotely consider bidding for an MLS franchise". I don't have any grand hopes of South Carolina securing a franchise. Charleston is a great USL First Division city. Atlanta (Georgia) is on its way to becoming one (once they get their new soccer stadium completed - it is located in a much more soccer conducive part of town). Charlotte does okay with its lower division team. I would be happy with an (eventual) MLS team in Atlanta or in the Research Triangle (North Carolina). South Carolina is unrealistic. I only presented the issue to show you that a non sports town (remember - ECHL - which is effectively AA hockey and an A league baseball team) has still spent over $70m US (in public-private partnerships) on sports venues inside of ten years. So what do you think a sports town might raise? We already went over the fact that the number of investors has jumped almost three times. I don't think that future investors need any longer worry about AEG dominating the league, when they are clearly willing to sell another franchise or two (leaving them with 2 or 3). They want to keep LA and MetroStars. I think they would sell Chicago if they could maintain operating rights (for non-soccer events) to the new Fire stadium. Garber might want to keep the momentum (of bringing new investors into the fold) going, but he has not pushed this latest round NEARLY as hard as he pushed the last few team sales and expansion. MLS has gotten much better at keeping their cards close to their chests on the San Jose and Kansas City situations and on the overall Telemundo situation. When Chivas and RSL were in the works, there was a press release every week. You keep going on and on about "the league never turning a profit". No one remotely expects the entire league to turn a profit until the next wave of SSSs is completed. Once Harrison, Bridgeview, Commerce City, (a full season of) Pizza Hut Park are on line and RSL, DC and KC have stadia in the pipeline - then you will start seeing the profits . . . That is the time - 3 to 4 years down the road - when the next expansion cycle would be most logical. It gives MLS time to develop enough talented players to prevent a precipitous drop of talent (the talent gap in the two expansion this teams is deplorable and there are quite a few marquee players that are aging around the league, who will need to be replaced). It gives MLS time to prove the success of their business plan - which will allow them to secure better terms with new investors. It will give future expansion bids more time to market and cultivate a front office, scouting department and fan base (assuming that they begin play in 2008 or 2009). It will give MLS time to figure out how to plan a decent schedule and balance the new expansion more equitably between the existing divisions. I still don't understand why MLS is in such a precarious situation (now that they have 7 investor-operators - with a couple more likely on the way amongst the existing franchises - after several years with only 3) that they MUST add investors NOW! HSG has a "order of succession" with Clark Hunt and the next generation and AEG is hardly struggling to capitalize its AEG holdings. Especially now that all three of their teams are going to have their own homes (and the fourth is likely to be off their books in the near future).
Glad we agree. All the more reason to be careful not to dilute the league with weak franchises in the short-term when operating profits are likely just around the corner. And the likelihood of those operating profits being just around the corner is what the I/Os have staked all their credibility on. There is absolutely no reason for AEG to have done as they have done in DC and NJ if they do not have faith in big market MLS teams turning profits. I am sure that they see a day when TV money is to be had. But they know the league cannot predicate its business plan on that. The TV money will merely be the gravy when the other revenue streams are bolstered to the point that they can support the great majority of costs. Adding MLSE (with what appears to be a relatively minor investment since the stadium is not going to be an MLSE property) does not really make MLS more attractive to mainstream sports business investors. The Kroenke, DC and Checketts buy-ins were more useful because all three are developing their own stadium plans and represent several models (self-funding billionaire {Kroenke}, big-fish small-pond with sports connections {Checketts}, soccer-rabid limited partnership {DC investors}) for future investors. No way that Chivas didn't make money selling 88,000 tickets for the Coliseum crowd. Vergera will get better players next season. A Chivas pull-out based on an inability to compete for fans in LA because of a poor sporting product would be a big black-eye to Mexican pride - which Chivas is all about. They will re-trench next year and begin to win some more fans. They do a good job attracting fans in road markets, too. They are a great asset to the league and the league will work with Vergera to ensure progress continues to be made. The division of markets aspect would be great for sporting purposes. It would generate additional interest. It is not a zero sums game. If Toronto could support an MLS franchise well - it could support two CSL entries. I am talking about CSL franchises that draw 8,000 to 12,000 in the bigger markets (Montreal and Toronto). If Toronto draws 16,000 for an MLS franchise, I don't see why the other figures are not achievable. And of course the league would (initially) be redistributive. I am basically treating MLSE as the AEG of the CSL. We are talking about an investment. That means an initial out-flow of capital. The Torontonians (don't make the mistake that I made) don't have anything invested in this, so don't even give them that consideration. They are asking us to let MLSE in on the cheap (a small expansion fee and permission to borrow a stadium built by other money) after US markets and investors have plowed $100s of millions into the league and you are giving them props for being upset about building two $8m US stadia? You are probably right. There is bias in the arguments on both sides. I think that the potential long-term benefits to both leagues (CSL and MLS) make it prudent to not rush into something as dramatic as expanding a domestic league across international borders. Especially considering that the costs to initiate a league (like a future CSL) are only going to be higher in the future. This may be the last time (for a long time) that Canada (not just Toronto) has a window for a league. Wait five years. If CSL is a complete non-starter in 5 years, then Toronto might need to move into MLS. If MLS is a complete non-starter in other, strong American markets in 5 years, maybe we need Toronto more than I am willing to admit at this time. But why NOW? Earlier I said 60%. But I don't know where we are getting the percentages. I imagine that MLSE needs to be a bit concerned with the strength of their holdings in the NHL right about now. It will be interesting for them to sort out a revised revenue structure with the new CBA and TV deals in place. If I were MLSE executives, I would want to make sure that there was not too much erosion in the hockey franchise value before I go off rushing to join yet another American sports league. Especially when they might be facing an even bigger crunch if NBA ratings continue to be soft and NBA franchise values stagnate (or worse) when it comes time for that TV contract (and CBA) to be renegotiated. I know that David Stern runs a tight ship, but it could mean tighter ships all across the league. It sounds (to me) like a good time for MLS and MLSE to take a good bit of personal time and make sure that this is a marriage that is going to be fruitful to both parties. Let MLSE figure out how much they are really willing to invest and how far they are willing to go to be partners in MLS (it better be more than $10m since the cash calls are going to be drastically scaled back come 2007 when they enter the league). And let MLS tie up the loose ends with the on-going stadium construction, developing talent so that the league can comfortably expand, finding new investors for the existing franchises (SJ and KC), solidifying commercial ties to regional and interregional tournaments and nailing down tv rights for the next couple world cups.
And I have pointed to the fact that for the most part they have been cherrypicking the easy markets to sell a team to an new I/O and attract municipal level support for building an SSS given that there has been an existing franchise with a proven fanbase over a timespan of about a decade to base financial models on and even on that basis San Jose and Kansas City are proving to be highly problematic. Now comes the harder part. Repeating the Salt Lake City scenario elsewhere. I never used the word precarious that would be an overstatement but MLS remains a speculative rather than a blue chip sort of investment. Remember the wrangling in New Jersey over the guarantee that the NJSEA wanted from AEG for what happens if the league folds and Don Garber's posturing that MLS is beyond that stage now so AEG shouldn't have to do that? End result is no NJSEA involvement in Harrison, NJ and AEG picking up the lion's share of the ca. $100 million tab. Make no mistake although it is good to see the stadium finally being built there, AEG lost in negotiating terms where funding is concerned and that sets a bit of a precedent elsewhere. A knock on effect from that may have been that a Salt Lake City area SSS will now have to be based largely on private investment as well although I haven't been following that one too closely. Bottom line is 7 I/Os and 12 franchises still isn't enough to get municipal bean counters assessing future risks to give the league the thumbs up yet in terms of being here to stay the way they would for MLB, the NFL, NBA and even the NHL.
I doubt very much that you would write that if you had been to North York Rockets (the second Toronto team needed to make up the numbers alongside the Blizzard) games at Esther Shiner stadium in the old CSL just a few years after the NASL ceased operations. Crowds in the dozens were nothing out of the ordinary and announced attendences had to be grossly inflated just to make them look embarrassing for a pro sport in a major media market in the paper the next morning. There is no mass market for PDL level soccer in Toronto any more than there is in most large American cities (for example the Houston Toros averaged just 86 per game in PDL in 2003 although nobody ever seems to bring that up where MLS expansion is concerned). MLS will pull in decent ticket buying crowds that can justify genuine full-time professionalism in a new SSS. Another CSL won't and would be sunk by the cost of air travel and hotel accomodation on road trips just like the last one and the more recent attempt at a Canadian Baseball League.
This is where BBTB has no concept of reality when it comes to Canada. Of course it's going to be expensive to go from Saskatoon to Welland for a game. The CBL only had one team in a big city: Calgary. No Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, or Ottawa while no one wanted to give a Montreal team a facility. The people though that the CBL could survive by going past the big cities and ignoring the money that would've gone into a league by trying to get into those cities. Such a shame that all that national sponsorship money and the TV contract with a third rate network went to waste because they ignored the big cities that often had much better stadia and the people who actually knew about the game in the country and how it would be marketed. As for the so-called travel burden, it seems that people base their assumptions on travel in Canada on one bad flight. Flying between the major cities is far less expensive that it was when the old CSL was in existance. To do business in this country of any kind involves travel between the major cities an one can easily sees ways how such travel can be made economical. Travel myth busted.
As you initially point out before appearing to contradict yourself at the end, the expenses involved with away trips involving 15 to 20 people flying by air and staying overnight in other cities mount up quickly even if air travel is somewhat less expensive than it used to be (with the way fuel prices are going how long is that going to last, however?). If anyone wants to get a feel for how quickly costs mount up and for the way a smaller destination like Saskatoon makes little difference relative to larger ones like Winnipeg and Edmonton from Toronto once the relative distances are factored in check out:- http://www.flightdepot.ca/ Unlike the Canadian Baseball League, the Intercounty Baseball League will almost certainly still be around in southern Ontario 30 years from now because their economic model does not involve air travel and overnight hotel stays and attempting to sustain short season full-time professionalism to match the propaganda of being a national level league with a television contract. If the Calgary Storm had stayed at the PDL level winning most of their games at home, while travelling by bus and staying NCAA-compatable rather than attempting the step up to USL-D1 (where air travel is required and players have to be paid substantial sums on pro contracts) they'd probably still be alive and kicking as well.
I guess you had to be there. We both were. I wonder if we know each other. The whole concept of Toronto drawing double digit thousands for anything less than MLS has no basis in the reality of the city. People don't want it and aren't willing to support it. MLS is a brand. It is the pinnacle in North America. It is the only thing that will sell in Toronto. It's as simple as that and whatever the reasons may be, that's the way it is. db
Do you realize how petty, pathetic and insecure this makes Toronto and Torontonians sound? They only want to watch soccer (if they really do) if they are sure it is the pinnacle sports league (i.e. good enough for Americans to support). Please tell me why this market will be an advantage for the league again? Oh yeah. Because MLSE can kick in: [doctor evil voice]10 million dollars[/doctor evil voice] Please MLS, play footsie with MLSE all you want, but don't go running to the altar! This sounds like a recipe for a real passionate soccer club. And one quibble with the above. I simply don't understand how you can describe the league I was proposing as PDL quality level. The budget would begin along the lines of USL First Division and could easily improve from that level. Especially if the new stadia were able to secure other events to derive revenue for the soccer corporation. But I am done with this topic. Your persistence in running-down the capacity of Canada to act independently and build a league of their own has left me devoid of hope that any soccer venture in Canada could be successful. It is a wonder that Montreal and Vancouver have done as well as they have, let alone the huge crowds that were around in the days of (it-came-from-nowhere) NASL. I will now devote my remaining tatters of energy to shoring up bid proposals from Paducah KY, Bismark, ND and Gary, IN (or anywhere else that investors and stadia can be built) so that MLS does not find it necessary to make a run for the border.
It's no different from the Houston Toros attracting 86 spectators a game for PDL two summers ago and that city now talking about an MLS team possibly playing out of the Astrodome in 2006. The reality of soccer is that it can be excrutiating to watch the lower skill level stuff if you have no direct involvement. In most European countries crowds fall away very quickly to a few dozen once you get below the fully-pro stuff.
I'm all for being careful, but there's a difference between being careful and being scared. When we use this kind of logic, there's some reason we can find to eliminate any choice, and yet eliminating all of them is certainly not the optimal decision. I don't think that's true. For example, they bring more to the table than Murstein, IMO. Also, precisely because it's a Canadian club, a Toronto club would bring a new player pool and new development channels into the league. People somehow seem to regard this as a bad thing for the USNT (I don't) but it's probably a good thing for the league. Right now they have decent-sized development channels from the Carribbean and from Central America. It would be good to develop one from Canada as well if posible. Just FTR, DC's investors, Payne aside (since he's not where the money comes from) aren't so much this as they are experienced real estate developers. I'm sure they did, but not enough to float a team for a whole season. I'm sure he will, but I'm also sure they won't come cheap. But it's not so much that I see Chivas folding as I could see them stagnating, and always needing help from Vergara's connections to putter along. It will be difficult to be good on the field soon, and it will be difficult to draw explosive revenues from a demographic that right now is still pretty working class (though much better than 30 years ago). Saying it's not zero sum and saying that one club won't siphon off some support from the other are two different things. The first I can endorse, the second I can't. There are lots of ways that could work out. It could be Jets/Giants, which would be great. It could end up looking like Yankees/Mets, which wouldn't be balanced but would actually be the best outcome financially. Or it could end up like Isles/Rangers or Clippers/Lakers, which would suck. I wouldn't, but there's a level of play problem here. The CSL, at least when it starts up, shouldn't even have a level of play that matches what Montreal has now (because you're starting with essentially the same player pool and splitting it more ways). That's a rough beginning to start from. Imagine if a US league had formed where everyone in the league had a lower level of play than the formerly best team in our country. Yes, and you can see where they might object. I don't know where 'props' comes into it. I assume the league won't sign an agreement that gets them hosed on the fee. But that decision is theirs to make, not mine. You mean because of the WYC? Eh, maybe, but that needn't be the last opportunity Canada could get. I'm not sure, if you waited, that we wouldn't be having this conversation five years on, with a Toronto stadium sitting decrepit--until the Argos eventually decide to move in.
I should be more explicit in one of my beliefs here: I believe it's more difficult to grow starting from an SSS of 5-6k than one of 20k. First, the commitment it takes to build a stadium at that league size is greater, relative to the size of the clubs--to illustrate the economies of scale, remember FC Dallas has spent 8x the cost of an MLS expansion fee (assuming it hasn't gone up) for its stadium plus premier youth facility. Charleston, in contrast, spent a little over 20x the cost of a USL expansion fee to build their facility, one that has no better amenities. (If we threw out the fields and considered stadium vs stadium, it would probably be about 5x for MLS or 20x for USL). I think that's broadly representative of the difference between funding a USL stadium at their revenue level versus funding an MLS stadium at theirs. ALso, I believe that because in the former case, growing the business almost certainly must mean growing the seating capacity of the stadium, where in the second case it is not necessarily so. This is because prices can be set high in the case of the 20k seat stadium--remember, the Galaxy draw the same as the Lakers do, they just can't charge anywhere near as much for the top seats. 20k already surpasses the minimum in raw size for 'big league spectacle.' They can just charge a lot more when and if there's ever dozens of name (and quasi-name ) actors wanting to sit next to Drew Carey. That will fly in Dallas with businessmen, but it won't fly in Charleston in that stadium. You'll never get the really high priced tivckets, because what those premium seats are bought for is big league spectacle of the kind that can't be generated in a venue that size. If and when Dallas gets to the point of averaging 20k fans a game in their 21k stadium, they can jack up the premium prices, and even the mid-tier seats, much higher than the currently are. If Chalreston starts averageing 4.5k in their 5.1k stadium, they can't do the same thing to nearly the same extent, and it would cost a whole lot more relative to the size of the club to expand the stadium (Atlanta's in an even bigger bid there, because they won't have the land to be able to expand theirs). What Charleston has done is create a neighborhood club that's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. That's great, but if it were being considered the vital first step to something bigger, it would be disappointing.
Road trip for a team from Edmonton for games in Hamilton and Toronto from June 22-26 2006. 21 people (18 players, 2 coaches, 1 trainer) Ticket on WestJet: $640 Round Trip and Open Jawed (Fly into Hamilton June 22, Fly Out of Toronto June 26) = $13,440 Hamilton accomidations: $253 for 2 nights with 3 to a room = $1771 Greyhound Ticket: $22 One Way = $462 Toronto Accomidations:$230 for 2 nights with 3 to a room = $1610 Total cost for the trip = $17,283 Given that such a team would also be considered for major discounts, the cost would be even much less. Travel myth BUSTED. NEXT!!!
Three to a room?! "Short straw sleeps in the tub!" Greyhound?! Ludicrous. This is your professional league concept is it? Try being realistic Doyle .... just once! It's not really all that difficult. db
You do realize DoyleG, that your budget (and there are some significant flaws in it as outlined above and others such as the lack of a per diem) would probably blow at least one home game's entire ticket revenues and possibly more than that if paid attendance was in line with the CSL era and that's before the players are paid to play in both that home game and in the away game and other expenses like stadium rent, referee and linesmen fees and payments to keep the league office and a possible tv contract funded are factored in. To me it looks more like hoisted on his own petard than travel myth busted but people can judge that for themselves. I try to avoid the self-proclaimed victory sort of approach.
Once again, you don't pay attention. How many companies pay a per diem? Not many. Why? Because the employees now earn enough that such costs on short trips can now be carried by the employee. You keep throwing up so much BS it's not even funny. You keep losing on every point and you don't even have to bother to debate in a proper manner. It just shows how out of touch you are. It's 2005, not the 1980's. Wake up and face reality. You guys only want MLS to boost your old egos.
It's still standard practice for pro sports leagues in North America to pay players a per diem when they are on the road over and above their base salary:- http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=342979&root=mls&CMP=OTC-DT9705204233&cc=4716 A seven-year MLSer himself, Burns goes about his new job as the team's administrator and sometime guru as matter-of-factly as possible. He'll protect his team vociferously, but he doesn't tolerate absurd player requests. "Figure it out!" is a favorite response. He gives me my meal per diem: $86 for two days. "Don't spend it all in one place," he advises. I'm in the lobby by 2:10. http://www.canoe.ca/Slam030816/cfl_edm1-sun.html http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2003-03-21-per-diem_x.htm http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/your_call.asp?messageId=555342&hubname=nhl http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/n...&content_id=948039&vkey=spt2005news&fext=.jsp
I said leagues. Not companies. And leagues wonder why they have so much trouble with finances. If you can't even read a post correctly, there's no point in this thread remaining open.
Bit pathetic if you are going to play the I'm the board moderator so I'm on a higher plane than you are card on this just because I have the temerity to disagree with you on here and have been able to provide background material to back my assertion on per diems up with documented facts. Think you got the first sentence the wrong way around but even if you didn't a new CSL would be a sports league (just like MLS, the NBA, NHL, CFL and MLB who along with other leagues pay their players per diems on the road) so I'm not sure what your point could possibly be beyond the fact that you want to highlight that you used a weasel wording.
The second sentence is a total non-sequitur IMO. Most North American leagues are doing OK financially right now regardless of the fact that they pay out per diems. $93 a day for a dozen or so basketball players isn't going to bust the bank when NBA salary caps run into the tens of millions. It can be problematic for struggling start-up pro soccer leagues, however:- http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/2003/0915/1616775.html Travel became a significant cost. Six of the eight teams played on the East Coast, but the league's San Diego and San Jose teams made 15 and 11 cross-country trips, respectively, during the 2003 season. Then factor in hotel rooms and per diems.
I have a rather sad feeling that you don't like travelling. Players don't need diems for short road trips.