Celt is far too kind talking about the ownership. Not sure I could ever be that generous. The fact we lost so little really shows the prowess of our VP, Walker. Almost no fans at so many games and we only lost $6M? Impressive. Not sure that's sustainable but to keep the bottom from falling out deserves faint praise.
I understand the consequences of blaming fan loyalty. It's part of a downward spiral in attendances we saw at Notts County. Of course the fans who are around to receive the message are the ones who have stayed 'loyal' through thick and thin, so they feel attacked and are more likely to drift away.
Correct. This is what we talk about on our boards lately. Kicking a man when he is down, just not what is done. Simply put for Houston, once there exists a core rot at your pro soccer club, one would think that anyone invested in the club would be all hands on deck! But this just has not been the case with our owners.
I think what folks may be confusing is the owners making money from investing in SUM, but their MLS team isn't the one gaining that direct benefit. Any dividend/profit made from SUM each year likely wouldn't show on the MLS team's P&L report, or how certain expenses wouldn't show on their EDR (KSE's ops at the Dick wouldn't necessarily show on the Rapids EDR as an example as they are separate entities).
That's only because that's how it was designed. If it weren't that way, that money might end up with the team's ledger. I'm fully aware it doesn't, but it's part of why a league of teams losing a combined $95,000,000.00 in a year still makes sense to the owners and the businesses involved. Without an MLS team, you don't get to be an investor in SUM, correct? As such the negatives of having an MLS team that doesn't make a profit are offset in theory by the SUM part of the puzzle. It's brilliant really.
Color me skeptical that a team with a $12 mln payroll and no USL affiliate is losing $16 mln. I know their stadium deal is less than perfect, but the stadium owners are part of the ownership group. Really wish the two NY MLS teams weren’t given to two ownership groups where the clubs are clearly treated like a minor league piece in their overall corporate structure.
Actually, SUM does distribute the profits from SUM to the investor operators. Says so in the Forbes article. In 2018, that disbursement was $125 million. Perhaps there is a technical legal distinction, but that cash still gets to the investor/operators of MLS. Whatever the technical legal distinctions are, for all intents and purposes that money still finds its way to the owners.
I think without the single- entity and without SUM we'd be back to the dark days of NASL, with teams relocating regularly hoping for the sort of pot luck that the Strikers had in Minnesota.
In ten seasons as the MetroStars, they were in the top half in regular season points half of the time. Since they became the Red Bulls, they won three Supporters Shields, and they were in the top half in regular season points ten out of fourteen times. I'm not saying Red Bull are great owners, but it's not like they ruined a successful club.
They also have been in the bottom three in salary for several consecutive seasons while occupying one of the two largest markets. If they had supplemented their homegrown talent (which I respect) with a wage budget that was at least middle of the pack or reinforced the roster with a major midseason acquisition or two perhaps they win a title. Instead they seem perfectly happy to be outspent by everyone saveHouston while they act like a farm team to their European holdings and their attendance deteriorates. I personally would love to see the possibilities of a New York franchise if it had an ownership group like that LAFC’s or even a major owner like Arthur Blank.
All the discussions Bradley’s agent and TFC have had during the last few months have MB taking a TAM deal with the stipulation that the club sign a DP (or two if the league goes to 4 DP’s) in the $5m plus range so the net is the same salary outlay. Also Bradley’s TFC salary has never been inflated given what he brings to the club. There may be an argument about the clubs other DP’s but not his.
This has always been my biggest gripes with the media as well as the reddit/twitter talking heads who try to use MLS is losing money therefor it needs to implement a better "more successful" system such as P/R argument. Beyond this it also used incorrectly as a thesis in erroneous articles by people like Ben Syzmanski about whether MLS is a Ponzi Scheme. Now I get why MLS ownership does this it's beneficial to them. However I think it shows poorly on "Journalist" who just regurgitate these claims as facts. I'd love to see a journalist do a exposee to the counter.
When you add in that $5.4mil 14 out of 24 teams had a positive profit 16 out of 24 with only 2 having a negative cash flow of less than 1 mil. When you add in the money shelter schemes of creating company LLC's to run and manage stadium merchandise,vendors, and parking so those revenues stay off the official team LLC books. That puts 19/20 out of 24 team owners that are at profit or break even. Likely only the teams that are at double digit losses are losing money.
Did you forget that they outspend a lot of teams for most of their history? (Henry, Angel, Lothar Matthäus and many others) . No results for the money invested. You may even say that they have been more successful on the field when they don't spend as much as the top teams. I think it revolves more around marketing, For a marketing juggernaut as RedBull, they seem to spend less in NY than the lemonade stand in the corner of your house.
No, I did not and I also give them credit for what they have and are spending on their academy and RB2. That doesn’t change my disappointment that they are now and have been for several years spending far under the league average on first team wages and nowhere near what top spending teams like TFC, LAG etc are willing to invest. I’d also note that since they slashed their first team spending the league has changed markedly. Gone are the days when a team’s only real DP options were high priced, aging veterans. Now teams all over the league are willing and able to attract high level players in their prime, especially South Americans. I’d also note that New York and the Red Bull’s organization would likely be a highly attractive destination for any number of talented players from around the world. I respect the heck out of their ability to develop and scout, however it sucks to watch what should be a flagship team in this league basically sit out of a burgeoning market for a new era of DPs. Are you really going to tell me that RBNY wouldn’t have had a better chance at a title if they had spent the money to improve their roster by signing a player like Almiron, Ruidiaz, Vela, Rossi, or Pozuelo? Further, I think the fact that NYRB is basically sitting out of the international transfer market while other teams in far smaller markets outspend them on both transfer fees and first team wages is a major, if not the primary reason that their relevance and attendance has declined despite strong performance on the pitch. I don’t think you can advertise your way out of cheapness in a market like NY. Those fans know better and I think it sucks that a market like NY doesn’t have an ownership group that is fully committed and whose true ambitions lie in that market and not overseas.
MLS posted a link to Forbes' annual valuation of MLS teams: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriss...xpansion-fees-sale-prices-surge/#5c5b6c4451b5 The top two MLS teams are Atlanta at $500 million and LA Galaxy at $480 million. Forbes also published this list of the world's most valuable soccer teams: https://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/#tab:overall Taking these together, the top MLS teams are now the 19th and 20th most valuable soccer teams on the planet (with others not far behind).
It's worth noting that Forbes only values the teams and doesn't include the value of team owned real estate such as training facilities and stadia. FCC has those so not all of the Whitman investment was going to the team.
Speaking of RBNY and even NYCFC for that matter, wouldn't it have being more beneficial for MLS to add a team like the NY Cosmos instead of RBNY or NYCFC? Cosmos ambitions wouldn't be on another team in Europe.
so far Red Bull and NYCFC have done a fairly good job, while the Cosmos have been in 2 failed leagues and are joining a D3 league next season after refusing to drop NASL down to D3 and equating it to being a death sentence... *shrug* MLS and the Cosmos did have some level of talks about them joining the league before NYCFC joined. However, the Cosmos were still in the “we’re the biggest club in the US” phase at the time and expected MLS to let them in without them actually joining the single entity structure and, if I remember correctly, at a greatly reduced expansion fee. The Cosmos felt that having them in the league would result in an attendance bounce across the league similar to Beckham and thought that should be considered part of their expansion fee.
I’m frequently amazed at how high MLS clubs are ranked in the valuations considering how little revenue they bring in comparatively. I guess that is one of the benefits of salary caps as it limits the losses quite a bit.