So it seems that Glazer - owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers - has once again increased his stake in Manchester United. At least one British newspaper reports that he is preparing an $800MM bid to buy out the remaining shareholders (including the Irish duo that has been in the news wrt SAF). With the figures I'm seeing thrown around, I'm really wondering about the inability of MLS to convince Glazer to buy the Mutiny. I'm guessing that the end of the Mutiny and Fusion really forced MLS to clean house. After years of tire kicking, the league had been unable to get anyone other than Horowitz to actually buy into the league - all the while losing several ownership groups. Apparently the finances of carrying three league owned teams really was a deal breaker. Since contraction, Hunt and Anschutz absorbed to two remaining league owned teams and all of a sudden people seem to be lining up to buy into the league. I wonder if the final rejection from the Glazers was the straw the broke the camels back and forced MLS to clean things up. I'd love for their to be a team in Tampa right now, but the league is definitely in far better shape than it was at the end of 2001.
From The Guardian: http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9753,1147123,00.html Implications for MLS? Does a bigger United presence bode well for the MLS? Is there no correlation? Is United a threat to MLS?
Glazer is a turd if you ask me. He has all that money yet he couldnt help out his community and keep the mutiny in his hometown. He probably doesnt give a crap about soccer and is just looking at Man U as a cash machine. Screw him. I hope this doesnt happen.
Wow. Agro Radiohead fan. Sweet. I don't think this has anything to do with the MLS, and will have very little impact on the MLS, unless Glazer feels like starting a Ajax Orlando type club.
It was inevitable that as soon as MLS began to show signs of growth that the "old-money" in the soccer world would try swoop in and cash in. It's the law of the business jungle. In the short term we'll see a lot of heat between "pro-MLS-only" types and "Euro-snobs". Because the Euro-snobs will delight in the fact that the big European clubs are better and the pro-MLS-onlys will claim that the Euro-snobs spending all of their money and TV watching (ratings) on European clubs is holding back the growth and acceptance of the domestic game. In truth, there's really no way to avoid it, and in the long run MLS will win. The rising tide really does lift all boats. The fact that businessmen are seeing professional specatator based soccer as a profitable business opportunity in the United States is a Very Good Thing™. One that will in the long run see the growth in quality and size of Major League Soccer. My guess is that it really will be a "long haul" growth. At least we've finally reached the point where we no longer see the domestic press ask "will MLS survive?" Now we just have to expand into new markets and keep building stadiums. In the short term, the summer glory tours by the European giants may be a distraction - and an excuse for some Americans to dismiss MLS as second rate, but the fact is that they will only hasten the acceptance of professional soccer as a spectator sport in the US. This is good for MLS in the long run. Occaisonal large crowds for MLS (MLS Cup 2002, July 4th in Denver) no longer make national press. But you can bet Manchester United vs Juventus at Giants Stadium makes the TV and sports marketing suits sit up and take another look.
The other thing is that as rich sports-owner wannabes begin to look at soccer as something worth being involved in, MLS will be able to attract folks unable or unwilling to layout the cash to be able to play in Glazer's league.
Good lord. You are the type of soccer fan that makes me hate other US Soccer Fans. You are the type of soccer fan that probably emails jim rome weekly trying to get him to like soccer. You hate Glazer because he wants to make money on his investment? Are you effin kidding me. Face facts Uncle Phil and Hunt for as much as they think the MLS will make money in the future are only still involved in this because they are "Soccer Angels". Most if not 95% of all the people in business (any) are in it to make money. Me being as big a fan of MLS and US soccer as there is, if I had 1 billion dollars to invest, I would invest it in ManUtd 100 times before I invested it in MLS. That is pure business reality. Time to wake up to it.
Personally, I wouldn't invest in Man U over MLS. It's an economic thing. A $1 Billion dollar invest in Man U. nets you maybe $25 million in profits per year, that's a 2.5% ROI (Return on Investment). You have to give up major dollars just to make 2.5% (the yearly interest alone on a 1 Billion CD would probably be somewhere around 80 million dollars). An investment of 40 million (MLS fee plus a good portion of an SSS if you can get city or state $$) will net you anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 in profit, which is pretty reserved, given that the Gals made money in their first 1/2 year of operation at HDC. That's a 2.5% ROI as well, with a lot less capital committed, and not taking into account the enormous growth potential in an MLS investment. That 40 Million could easily be worth 100 million in 10 years. Depends on the level of risk you are willing to deal with I guess.
8% CD??????? An 8% CD is an impossibility in today's economy, given that the current COFI [Cost of Funds Index] is somewhere in the 2 to 3% range. There is absolutely NO WAY anyone, anywhere, no matter the client, no matter the size of the deposit is earning 4 times the COFI. Period. EDIT: I just saw the COFI measured at 1.902% today. [COFI measures the average Cost of "buying" money from the fed, which varies dependent on banks' ability to pay interest on deposits, dividends paid to investors, etc..., minus fees/interest charged to its clientele. If anyone knows of a bank dumb enough to pay anything more than 3 or 4% on deposits, then let us all know, so we can rip them off, too.] Now, if you stated that the "yearly interest on a 1B CD was somewhere between 10 to 25 million," you'd have some validity in that statement. However, your point about MLS being an actual venture in which to invest/underwrite may have some validity. I'm not so sure MLS would be a better venture to engage in than Man Ure. Cheers!
Re: 8% CD??????? I haven't been in the real world for 4 years now (college) so I haven't had too much exposure to the current market (CD's etc...). But you're telling me there's nowhere I could bring $1 Billion in the current market and not get a fairly safe 8% return?
Jeez Andy, I would've expected you to know that they have a ton of youth soccer players in the area. Of course they deserve a team.
Re: Re: 8% CD??????? Sure, there are plenty of means that may yield returns from 8% and up. Any rate of return from -infinity to infinity is a possibility; One need only find the correct vehicle. But in today's economy, given that CDs [Be they Personal or Commercial] are dependent on BANK RATES, an 8% return on a CD is an impossibility. What made me respond to your original post was the specific mention of the CD. Cheers!
peledre - - I was thinking of buying Man U or Arsenal, but you changed my mind, now I'm buying American. You got Garber's cell number?
1-800-MLS-BEST p.s. What are you doing here Bill G.? I thought you were working on some new software. Anyway, call the number and buy us a team in the Emerald City.
Thanks you made my point for me. Thats what I was trying to say he doesnt give a crap about soccer and is only in it for the money. If I'm Man United is that who you really want controlling your team? Also, businesses are always helping out local community projects with millions of dollars a year for good publicity. Just imagine the great publicity if the glazers would have stepped in in the last hour and said "well even though its a risky venture, we wanted to keep the team in Tampa so all kids playing could have players to look up to and a team to root for". Sounds like a great pr move to me, not to mention that long term mls doesnt look all that bad financially compared to other sports leagues. Glazer is probably the type of guy who takes tax breaks from the government while shipping his jobs and facilities offshore.
If you were to judge Glazer by the way he has run the Tampa Bay Bucaneers, he is the ideal owner: Not cheap with his money and lets the football people run the team. It's hard to argue with that. One thing that upsets me is the number of jealous people who begrudge others their right to do with their money as they please. The Glazer brothers are self-made millionaires that have done nothing that others couldn't have done had they been willing to be a success. It took hard work and good judgement to get to where they are now. If I am a fan, that is the kind of ownership I would want; put a good product on the field and everyone is happy. The Glazers are smart enough to realize that is the only way to make money in the long run.
Re: Re: 8% CD??????? Yes there is, but it may result in spending some time in prison or being killed by a rival drug dealer. Right now the supply of money is very cheap. For example look at where most mortgages are at 5 - 6% for a fixed rate. I don't want to rain on your prarade but I think that the chances of getting the type of return your talking about by investing in the MLS is slim to none and slim just left town. It's been 8 years and the league has lost money every season. Granted they have slowed the blood lose, but we're hardly close to breaking even. Some of the teams may be close to break even, but just remember every owner is going to chip in for any overall loss in the league. The only area where I could see your investment increasing would be in value of land purchased for a stadium or training facility. For the most part buying a sports franchise is not done as a investment option. That is unless your planning on selling it at a latter time and you hope the value of the franchise goes up. You could also speculate that Glazer is buying additional shares because he is expecting the other group to make a tendered offer that will increase the valued of the stock and he'll make a killing. Or maybe both groups are trying to raise the stock value with the possiblity the Man United PLC will do a stock buy back to prevent a hostile take over. Either way, he makes more money.
Re: Re: Re: 8% CD??????? Talk to Anschutz if you don't think that MLS is an investment opportunity. For the most part, there aren't a whole lot of "growth industries" in the sports franchise world. MLS is one of the few that I believe you could catergorize as a potential growth industry, and if you're willing to incur the risk, I think there is great potential for seeing 100%+ returns on franchise resales 10 years from now.
re: "growth industries" I must agree with my financial advisor peledre... For all the troubles MLS has, whenever I go to a match, I see hundreds, thousands of kids, most of whom look like they're having a blast. When I go to an MLB game, I see a bunch of old people with hearing aids, or yuppies conducting business on their cell phones. (I go to SF Giants games if, and only if, my buddy has a free extra ticket.) There are next to no kids by percentage. If the MLS can hang on another few years, we're going to see something wonderful happen. MLS will be making money, modestly perhaps, while the stands will be filled with 30 year old fans who "grew up" with pro soccer, and they'll be bringing their own kids to the games. MLS is not an investment for the average owner. But if I had millions to play with, I'd rather roll the dice with MLS than with any other sport.
two things have to happen for this to matter. one, the euro summer tours will have to continue to do well, something I'm skeptical of. two, the big money in US sports will have to figure out that these players playing in MLS would make them more money for their investment. don't know if it could or would happen, but this is the only scenario where MLS benefits from anything that these summer mystery tours produce. otherwise, Man U being owned by the Glazers will be a trivia question, not something that matters to MSL fans.
Have you ever considered that maybe the Glazers thought about the whole "help the Tampa Bay franchise" in Tampa and help the community? Maybe they didn't want the league controlling their team (single entity fiasco). The Glazers probably help the community in many ways through the Buccaneers why do they need to keep the Mutiny for that? They can spend the $2 to $10 million in losses for tons of community service projects in their name. Why not invest in a Highly visible team one of the richest in the world? They can then market their product "Bucs" in England and bring Manchester United here. It makes a lot of sense to try and buy Manchester United. Why not?