That's true, but - please correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't the problem that most advertising contracts are flexible in that they will pay X if MLS viewer numbers are Y and they will pay X+ if MLS viewer numbers are Z and that those view numbers are based on US television ratings not US & Canadian ratings? So while a company may appreciate the Canadian marketing, MLS wouldn't be making any advertising money off of it???? So 100,000 views in Portland would be worth more than 200,000 in Vancouver.
Sierra Mist - no. i'll give you that one. i as for the viewership dealy - i'd hope they have a way around that, as it seems to be a fairly minor problem. (ie use a canadian ratings measure in addition to a us one) Shirt Sponsorships Chicago - Best Buy LA - Herbalife Toronto - BMO Seattle - XBox Live Houston - Amigo Energy San Jose - Amway Chivas - Comex Columbus - Glidden D.C. - Volkswagen Real Salt Lake - Xango NY - Red Bull i know it's not the be-all and end-all of sponsorships, but 10/11 of these companies operate and sell in canada (the exception, of course being amigo energy, but from what i understand, they don't provide a service outside of texas?)
Right................ that's why the bid was rejected. Thanks for the "how to get what you want" economic lesson. It saved me a loonie or two.
The funny thing is with more and more bids seemingly becoming more "unsuitable" as the weeks go on, Saputo may have been right all along. I'm pretty sure he was knew about the credit crunch and was betting on that many of these bids were non starters. In any ecomomy $40 million is a gamble on a MLS francise, espeicially with only three teams in the league that make money, and now MLS is expecting that much in a recession?
A couple of things. 1. MLS does not HAVE to expand at this point. 2. The expansion fee was set before these bids were submitted. 3. If MLS does expand they will find a couple of bids who WILL pay the required fee. MLS isn't a charity, it's an exclusive club of very rich men who didn't become that way by giving in to people who try to lowball them. Paulson is Portland has the money, Kerfoot in Vancouver does as well. Melnyk hasn't balked at the fee either. The right market can make money. Seattle is already profitable and haven't played a game yet. Portland and Vancouver would have similar results. Saputo obviously didn't see the Montreal being profitable or he would have stayed the course.
That's true. Saputo's willingness to either A) Pay $40m or B) offer less and risk an MLS rebuke . . .had to be based on his financial forecasts. If he felt there was a comfortable return at $40m, it would not have made much sense for him to take the risk of rejecting MLS's price if his financial forecasts didn't make that risk necessary (assuming he could get the money in the first place). So is Saputo wrong in his forecasts, is he a poor negotiator, was he not able to come up with the captial, or is it possible that a club that already averages above 10k in attendance in a large market would not have an attractive enough return to justify $40m + stadium upgrades upfront? MLS owners had to be asking these questions when Saputo submitted his bid. At the end of the day he'll end up looking a genious after all if MLS ends up accepting his lower offer or even if it gives him a second chance to pay the original $40m.
See people like Sounderman, Tonya Harding and the turkishscreamingbanshee keep calling Saputo a "putz" and a "idiot". They say he is a poor negotiator who can't come up with the money. In fact the guy made a simple business decision. He didn't think it was worth ponying up $40 million US to join MLS. He made an offer and it was rejected. End of story. The man at the time thought that staying in USL and comping/selling 15k tix to USL games was helping soccer and his bank balance just fine. Its his money and his team. As an aside to our Canadian friends, we didn't hear much of the 50k in attendance at Montreal last night. Fox Soccer Channel did a voice over commentary from a studio in Los Angeles. The commentators were watching the same video feed we were and the background noise was greatly deadened. They mentioned twice that they 'thought' Garber would be in attendance.
Good summary in a nutshell. Business. That's it. Business. Both sides. Who has "hand" in the end will make the decision. As long as MLS has players willing to pay 40 mill, and put a real effort into getting a stadium I wager they won't budge... ...if they don't. Game on!
See, I think the thing that most of us forget about USL and MLS is that they use different ownership models. So, now, he 100% owns a team in USL which breaks even/turns a profit (I know it is a not-for-profit entity but that just means at the end the money has to be distributed via salaries/expenses to ensure no profit), is stable and he does not have to write a $40 million cheque. That same entity has proven capable of producing a team/squad good enough to make a lucrative run in the CCL and last night had to be profitable (lets say ticket prices averaged $25 (they ranged from $10 to $50)....so the gross revenue from tickets was nearly $1.4 million.....assume that other revenues covered the event cost....that ain't bad!!!!). MLS represents the risk to him. He has to pay $40 million, commit more money to expand his stadium and give up +/- 50% ownership in his team to his new partners and get, in return, 1/18th of 50% of the each of the other teams (+/-)...not all of those make money. I fully understand why MLS has set the price at $40 million and, I think, they will get that (if from no one else they will get it from Melnyk and Kerfoot&Co.).....but I understand why Saputo might question the risk given his very unique situation with the Impact as is. This may be a rare situation where they are both right and no one is wrong but, in the end, the thing that is most logical (Montreal as part of MLS) is not achievable.
MOD NOTE: Please follow the [R] and do not post results. If you feel the need to post results, do it in the USL forum - the result has absolutely nothing to do with expansion.
The difference between you and most others on here, Nostrasheltus, is we try and talk about things that have actually happened instead of making false claims and predictions. I don't think anybody feels that Saputo couldn't come up with the expansion fee......... he simply wouldn't and was told to take a hike. The fee was set BEFORE he submitted his bid. Did he think this was ebay and the league said "make an offer"? Blaming the league for Saputo's mis-judgment of th situation is really kind of stupid.
Well as far as the news is concerned, Portland is still willing to pay $40 million. St. Louis is still willing to pay $40 million. Vancouver is still willing to pay $40 million. Ottawa is still willing to pay $40 million. So may Joey is a giant douchebag cheapskate?
While I agree about the [R] part, I strongly disagree that the result has nothing to do with expansion. Mostly that this result shows that the cheese man had a point. Why spend $40m, when you can stay in the USL, which is less restrictive and allows you to build a very deep squad that allows you take cup competitions seriously.
But the actual score has nothing to do with that. The fact that the game was played makes that point.
(hat tip to MLS rumors for the translation) http://www.cyberpresse.ca/opinions/...26/01-831274-se-reconcilier-avec-le-stade.php «Le propriétaire des Mets de New York avait demandé une équipe pour la région du grand New York. Il vient de révéler qu'il a perdu une fortune et qu'il renonce à sa demande. On va voir. Si jamais le prix vient dans une fourchette intéressante, quelque chose comme 20 millions pour la concession et 20 millions pour agrandir le stade Saputo, on verra», de dire Joey Saputo. "The owner of the New York Mets had asked a team to the Greater New York. He recently revealed that he lost a fortune and that he renounces his claim. We'll see. If the price comes in a range of interesting, something like 20 million for the concession and $ 20 million to expand the Saputo Stadium, we'll see, "said Joey Saputo.
Well then in that case, shouldn't Merritt Paulson get in for free? $0 for the concession and $40 million to renovate PGE Park?
I actualy agree with you, and not the Impact owner on this. If he ain't payin MLS full freight, they're just going to ignore him, plain and simple
The MLS is not doing that well...what 2 profitable teams? 3 with Seattle? Sometimes you gotta check your ego and your bank account and determine which one weighs more...
three...you forgot Dallas. Four with Seattle it appears. And Salt Lake is projecting profitability in their new building as well. You also have stadiums being built in Kansas City, Philadelphia, and New York. Houston appears to be well on their way to stadium approval too. DC United just announced plans to build a stadium in PG county and San Jose seems to be inching ever closer to building their own stadium as well. On top of that, in these troubled economic times, there are still at minimum, four bidders more than willing to cought up $40 million to join the league, one of whom already has stadium approval, and a second that is looking like they will approve funding for stadium renovations in the next couple of weeks. I think MLS has earned the right to have a bit of an ego.
There's a major factor being forgotten here: David Beckham. Whether he returns to MLS or not I suspect will have alot to do with how the league is realistically valued by investors, and therefore the true value of an MLS franchise to potential owners. If Beckham bolts I don't know if maybe MLS has to really consider some sort of compromise on the expansion fee, which were set at the height of Beckham mania let's remember. Maybe the #1 reason why Beckham will be back in LA after all, that.
I don't think that matters so much because since Beckham has joined; it opened the gates and you see a lot more aging Euro stars who are interested in making their way to MLS. More so with ones who have plenty more technical skills left to make an impact than Beckham did than just set-pieces.