Per Forbes, here's the Union's value, 2012 revenue, and 2012 profit: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45efhfi/11-philadelphia-union/
Pink Cows Profit: -$6.2 million. Does that make them the winners of the MLS's Emptiest Cup? This year's "Doop Cast" Doopies are up and there is a winner from Big Soccer on there for post of the year. Also, look out for a special tribute to that post to come on line soon. http://Www.doopcast.com/
Re: Forbes franchise value of $90M I'm happy that they are not losing money as some have sensed they might be, but $1.1 million in profit is relatively paltry compared to the operating budget size. Still, it might give a little bit of wiggle room to get an actual DP. Though I wish those numbers were larger for the #4 largest market in the US, it is what it is with a seemingly frugal ownership group and front office. If they make good on their promises to improve the team this off-season, then I'd expect those figures to increase along with improved performance--even despite having to spend additional capital on a DP.
That amount of money is a drop in the bucket for Red Bull. They probably see it as an investment anyway.
The Philadelphia Union are the 11th most valuable MLS team according to Forbes.com http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/11/20/major-league-soccers-most-valuable-teams/ So now we'll finally get a quality midfielder who can create chances and provide service?
While I agree with your assessment of NYRB, it's probably the same for us, just in real estate instead of brand. The problem is our ownership group doesn't have the deep pockets of a multinational corporation backing it up. Until they develop the area and get some non soccer related income flowing around the stadium, I don't see them buying players of the Henry/Cahill ilk.
keep in mind these numbers are from 2012. i imagine the union profits rose a bit more in 2013, as most ventures dont turn big profits early on
You could also make the argument that after the playoff appearance in 2011 that the 2012 numbers are a bit inflated, and that the 2013 numbers will fall off after how bad 2012 was for the team.
My biggest takeaway was not the value of the club (although I'm curious to know how much it has appreciated - anyone know the ballpark for the original expansion fee + stadium cost?) but the fact that the U is actually one of the teams running a profit, albeit a small one.
Don't really like playing the GM game with financials.....I'm just a fan who want a really good product on the pitch. But..... I was thinking about TV revenue and all the money the Premier League is getting from the US right now....I can't help think but that money will eventually end up in the MLS in a certain amount of years. The Union, getting a team right now in the infant stage of the league growing, could be a little aggressive with spending money an eventually see that money come back doubled. But I'm also biased as a fan!
Even some concerts at PPL couldn't hurt, right? And wouldn't require any expensive or risky construction.
On the contrary, all it basically takes is some de-construction. Aren't the central portions of TRE made to be disassembled to create a stage?
Seattle, damn. They are destroying the field when it comes to the accounting books...Union are in a good place it seems. Would love to see a little more investment in the roster...
There is a graph going around on twitter that plots revenue vs. profit, and the U are right along the trend line. More interesting are the outliers: Red Bull, which makes a lot but lost money, and the Revs, who don't spend anything but still turn a profit.
I think it's important to draw a distinction between teams that are "losing money" and teams that "claim a loss". A business of that size and complexity needs to make a LOT of money before they run out of ways to hide it.