Phil Rawlins Is Worth Around 60 Million Dollars

Discussion in 'Austin Aztex' started by DaveBrett, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. DaveBrett

    DaveBrett Member

    Nov 28, 1998
    Austin, Texas
    I just talked to a friend of Phil's who told me -- on condition of anonymity -- that Phil has around 60 million dollars.

    As everyone knows by now, you cannot make money on professional soccer in this country unless you have a new, soccer-specific stadium. Even in a new stadium you still might not make money, but building a new stadium is your only chance to make a profit.

    A new 10,000 seat soccer-specific stadium would cost around 25-30 million dollars to build. Of course, that number could be higher or lower. But let's assume for argument's sake that it is around 30 million. So what it came down to is this: assuming he could not get any public money to build a new stadium, Phil Rawlins would have to liquidate about half of his net worth to build a proper stadium for the team.

    I had a conversation with Phil Rawlins three years ago. I told him that he would never make money playing in a high school football stadium. He said that other people had told him the same thing, and he planned to build a new stadium. But I wonder now what he really meant by "planned."
     
  2. Parrothead FC

    Parrothead FC Member

    Jun 29, 2005
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bullshit.
     
  3. dspence2311

    dspence2311 Member+

    Oct 14, 2007
    I'm not prepared to tell anyone how to spend their money. I am going to stick up for those of us who were misled by what Phil said was his plan for a soccer future in Austin. I suspect that this next time around they will think twice about affirmatively asking people to go the extra mile for the franchise. I suspect they will eventually realize that they made a mistake in how they handled the last few months.
     
  4. DaveBrett

    DaveBrett Member

    Nov 28, 1998
    Austin, Texas
    Excuse me, I should have phrased it "as everyone but a few ignorant idiots knows by now"
     
  5. Parrothead FC

    Parrothead FC Member

    Jun 29, 2005
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And everyone in Seattle.

    The SSS craze is misguided. SSSs are appropriate in many markets, but not in all. It is perfectly possible to be a successful organization without a SSS, and in some cases a SSS done poorly may set an organization back (see FCD, although many of its fans would disagree with me). A SSS should NOT be a top priority for any fledgling club; clubs must be free to make their own pragmatic decisions on whether and when to take this dramatic and easy-to-mismanage step. Ideally, this should not come until after a club has achieved a certain minimum level of viability.
     
  6. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And how many have achieved this minimum level of viability without control of the revenue streams of a venue they can either control or at least have reasonable lease arrangements with?

    Still waiting.....it's rare.

    The term "SSS" is misleading, as you point out with Seattle, which is a special case. BC Place won't be, strictly speaking, an SSS either. But the Whitecaps will be way better off there than in its previous setup.

    Any "fledgling club" that doesn't at least have an idea of a way to capture and retain revenue - whether that's with their own purpose-built stadium or one that makes sense and allows them to do that - won't be a "fledgling club" for long. They'll be bleeding demised unless there's some extraordinary circumstance like being owned by Robert Kraft or something.
     
  7. Parrothead FC

    Parrothead FC Member

    Jun 29, 2005
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Indeed, having a stadium deal that makes sense is a crucial part of being a viable team. But the tired idea that the stadium has to be "new," or that it has to be "soccer specific" (or even primarily soccer), is incorrect and unhelpful.

    The Aztex's deal with House Park made sense for the stage of development we were in. Down the line, if things had continued on the same trajectory, we could have made another deal that made equally good sense for a growing team. But rushing headlong into a new SSS, possibly one in some god-forsaken suburb, just for the sake of avoiding rent, is not in and of itself a crucial thing or even a good thing.

    Sadly, it's all moot now, so I'm not at all sure why we're discussing it.
     
  8. The Irish Rover

    The Irish Rover Member+

    Aug 1, 2010
    Dublin
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic

    Paul Allen owns the Seahawks & is an investor in the Sounders. The Sounders will get a good deal from QWest Field, good enough to make it a de facto SSS. Also, QWest was designed to host soccer from the get-go.

    Owning a stadium, or being the lessor of it (like the timbers will be) means that instead of paying rent, you're building equity and capturing the revenue streams - beer & food, parking, stadium naming rights, cstand naming rights, concerts, other sports teams (e.g. college throwball in Portland), Billy Graham-style revivals, whatever makes a $.

    Sure, building a stadium is a huge undertaking, but one not to be undertaken without reaching "a certain minimum level of viability"? Sorry, but without control over your own stadium, you'll never reach that minimum level. Fans of Wimbledon can fill you in on the details.
     
  9. Parrothead FC

    Parrothead FC Member

    Jun 29, 2005
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    As I've said, it is important to make a stadium deal that makes economic sense. I agree with both Irish Rover and kenntomasch in this regard.

    I strongly disagree with the original poster, who believes that all successful American soccer teams must have a "new" and "soccer specific stadium." This notion is misguided. For many teams, a SSS is a great step forward. For many other teams, other arrangements work just as well or even better. As Irish Rover indicated, there is a spectrum of stadium ownership, and it is foolish to believe that only the extreme end of the spectrum is valid.

    In my humble opinion, given the challenges of building locally, Austin would have benefited from something not on the extreme end of the spectrum.
     
  10. Barbaro

    Barbaro Member

    Roma
    United States
    May 3, 2004
    Austin, TX
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    And, to answer your previous musing, I guess the reason we're still discussing it is, it might become relevant again some time in the future (hope springs eternal, eh?). As noted earlier, there actually were real estate interests very interested in participating in such a venture -- especially for the concert venue possibilities -- though how realistic that ever was, I suppose we'll never know.
     
  11. DaveBrett

    DaveBrett Member

    Nov 28, 1998
    Austin, Texas
    You know what you are, Parrothead? You're a Luddite.

    Every new soccer-specific stadium represents progress for the sport in this country. And you're against progress!
     
  12. The Irish Rover

    The Irish Rover Member+

    Aug 1, 2010
    Dublin
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    Looking back over your posts, I think I missed part of your message and came on a bid hard anyway. Apologies.

    Let's just say that if we change "minimum level of viability" to "minimum level of support" as a precondition for building a stadium we can both agree - and Kenn Tomasch might join us for a lovefest and we all sing kumbaya :D.

    You're right that if the Aztex's max potential support is say 4.5k, a stadium is displacement activity; there are too many mores serious problems. With a steady 7k, it's another ball game.
     
  13. dspence2311

    dspence2311 Member+

    Oct 14, 2007
    And I imagine that those numbers are a function of a bunch of other things --how much time you're willing to take to build fan support, the rate at which you throw resources at that issue, etc. It's sort of like estimates of the amount of oil we can get out of an underground reservoir: we can get X barrels at $40 a barrel, 2x at $60, etc. And of course the stadium is a big part of that. Given where we got in attendance at a House Park, I have no doubt we could hit Rochester numbers (avg 6500) at a stadium that sold beer and was reasonably centrally located. But it might take time to build to that. So the question is who is willing to take the risk/losses on the way to that outcome.
     
  14. VioletCrown

    VioletCrown Member+

    FC Dallas
    United States
    Aug 30, 2000
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And looking at the most recent history of D2 soccer, the only owners that have pulled it off (Kerfoot, Paulson and Saputo) are billionaires. At this point, the only way I see Austin managing to weave its way through the above nicely summarized path to a surviving soccer league is with a billionaire. I think there might be one other than Dell in town.

    Upshot: what are the odds of an Austin billionaire caring that much about soccer? Pretty slim, I'd say. But maybe someone will show up in the next ten years.
     
  15. Parrothead FC

    Parrothead FC Member

    Jun 29, 2005
    Austin, Texas
    Club:
    Austin Aztex
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's my fault for having been unnecessarily rude to begin with. Your rewording suggestion is a good one. :)

    I've felt strongly about this issue ever since Dallas moved from the Cotton Bowl to Frisco. Granted, Dallas' current average attendance no longer drags down the league average quite as badly as it did a couple of years ago, and granted, Dallas apparently makes money. Nevertheless, I feel that it's important for teams to do whatever they can to stay within close proximity to their support base.

    I think I'm fairly representative of a casual fan (I've never joined a supporters' club and rarely been a season ticket holder) and I know that a top priority for me is how easy it is to access the stadium. Many of Dallas' hardcore supports argue that it's not difficult to drive 30-45 minutes from Dallas to Frisco along congested toll roads, but I humbly disagree. In Austin I had to drive to House Park, but it was only a 15 minute trip down MOPAC in comparatively light traffic.
     
  16. The Irish Rover

    The Irish Rover Member+

    Aug 1, 2010
    Dublin
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    Two Big Soccer posters walking back their argument and apologizing for being rude! We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. The moderators will be on to ban us for life soon :D
     

Share This Page