Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sacramento Republic FC' started by 30King, Nov 28, 2013.
"It" must refer to despair.
Good one. It's on, baby!
It's always on despair on the Doom Ledge.
I ain't believing crap until I hear the whistle at the first SRFC MLS game...………..the closing whistle. #ImwithKnave
I imagine there's a little more space to spread out out on the Doom Ledge right now
Up to 30 already. That sure did not take long.
When are these advanced presentations taking place? Is my guess at an official announcement by May 1 still possible?
Theyll wait til All Star half time, July 31st, thats how they roll. Just hope Sac is in 2021 with scum tree FC and STL is 2022. They feel like theyd need more time to get ready.
This is Theatre of the Absurd.
I missed the part of the press release where the league said it anticipates announcing both that both slots by the all-star game. That's much more reasonable. Assuming they do it.
I think I saw somewhere that the presentations may be at the next committee meeting which I believe is in May.
You missed it because it was never made. Insiders have supposedly stated that announcements are hoped to be made by the end of the year at the latest. I'll believe when I see it.
"With agreements currently in place with 27 total clubs, the league anticipates selecting the 28th and 29th expansion teams by the All-Star Game, presented by Target on July 31."
Thanks missed that. I would say that just about guarantees Sacramento and St Louis will have franchises as long as they give a competent presentation.
Agreed. If Sac/STL come in and prove all the boxes are checked, it is a done deal.
If not, then it opens up again.
In your case, I believe the boxes are checked.
I can only shake my head ...
I was thinking more like “Theater of Pain.” But then I remembered that was actually a lot of fun, lol.
Current members of the Expansion Committee:
Jonathan Kraft, New England
Cliff Illig, Kansas City
Bill McGuire, Minnesota
Andrew Hauptman, Chicago
Jay Sugarman, Philadelphia
Joe Roth, Seattle
Look at all those clubs that could be St. Louis and Detroit rivals! The fix is in!
Define "Ponzi scheme". I'm pretty sure you're definition doesn't match mine.
MLS owners aren't "getting rich off of expansion fees."
They're selling a share of a multi-billion dollar business. That's a one-time payment that results in a dilution of shares for each of the pre-existing owners.
If Microsoft releases 10 million shares of stock, you don't call that a Ponzi scheme. That's all this is.
If the business is profitable, you're selling shares, if not, it's a ponzi scheme. Do we know for sure which MLS is?
We have had, and continue to have, interest from many different very intelligent, very wealthy individuals. They dont invest hundreds of millions and lots of energy into this without doing a deep dive into the business.
Amazon lost billions, but kept selling shares before it eventually became profitable. Was Amazon a ponzi scheme? Same for almost every other big American company. If you are growing, and have massive opportunity for further growth, you get investors who are interested in taking that ride. Some of these companies eventually fail before they become profitable, but that doesn't make them a ponzi scheme, which implies a deliberate attempt to deceive.
One thing new investors bring to the table to grow the business is their market and the broadcast revenue they bring. That's why it makes sense for the league to grow so fast, they want these teams on board when they ask for $300m or more for rights.
MLS may fail, but plenty of people see the enormous growth opportunity left. New investors want in on it, existing investors want compensation for giving up their share of that opportunity. They may all fail together, but unless you can prove that MLS is misleading potential investors, then dont be one of the stupid mouth-breathers who yell Ponzi because they lack intelligence to know better.
Funny, as I read the first sentence of your post Amazon came to mind. Is MLS comparable to Amazon is the next question.
I'm inclined to agree with you, BTW. The growth is there and MLS will be alright. Labeling it a ponzi-scheme is a little over-the-top. I think the implication is more that this is a tactic to keep teams afloat by offsetting the supposed loses. However, with the closed business model, we don't really know what's true. I realize statements of profitability by the league that plenty of teams lose money are self-serving. But again, we don't really know.
Investors poured $1B into Theranos, which failed, and have put in over $19B into Tesla, which is pretty iffy investment right now. I know these are very different situations, but just because investors are lined up isn't proof in-and-of-itself of a company's inevitable success.
200/27 = $7.4 million per team. So $15 million for two.
Assuming MLS does not take a cut.
That is a decent chunk of change. Certainly. But if you just paid a $150 million expansion fee, you are not making your money back via your share of expansion fees.