NASL Bay Area

In order for that to happen it would require them to go against standard business practice. Considering many of the owners are some of the top businessmen at some of the largest companies in the world, I highly doubt they would have come into this agreement where someone could just leave at a whim leaving the rest to foot their bill.

 

Yeah, I think we need to revisit this as the season, and hopefully seasonS progress.

Survival is first.
Survival beyond a couple of seasons means a sustainable financial model. Not necessarily profitability, but losses that the ownership group can sustain.
And ownership cohesion, as some have mentioned. They need to stay committed, or, some of them need to buy out those who aren't committed.
Sponsors! They need some serious sponsors.

On the stadium front, building a stadium in SF is almost certainly out of the question, unless someone has cargo ship loads of money, and probably compromising photos of several SF Supervisors. (Which in SF is a very tall order indeed. Goats?) Could they stay in Kezar? It would be better if they could cover the track and widen the field and let people sit closer. The distance from the fans to the pitch is a bit much. Could they put up a stadium in Brisbane? South City? Daly City?

On the whole, I'm not optimistic, but I certainly wish them well.

Go Deltas!!

- Mark

 

That's exactly what I meant, alot of wealthy people thought they want to own a sports franchise until their money start floating out the window, like they say, how do you make millions owning a sports team, spend billions

 

Founded in '52 with teams in Calgary, Vancouver, Seattle, and Edmonton, expanded to Winnipeg in '55 Portland in '60 San Francisco and LA in '61, Denver in '63. With its prevalence in large western markets and its agenda to expand, they challenged the NHL in the '60s for a national TV contract. Reason why the NHL expanded to 12 with 2 in the west coast in '67. League quickly fell apart since the NHL and WHA targeted their markets. I guess one team did survive. San Francisco Seals relocated to Oakland, joined the NHL, moved to Cleveland, merged with Minnesota and moved to Dallas.

 

Well, it's not insane to presume that the amount of loss acceptable is comensurate to the initial investment. These smaller owners may not be as cool with a slow start as Helmick or Stanford-Geromel. They don't necessarily all have this grandiose dream of starting and running a soccer club, it may be another VC opportunity for them.

 

FL=Federal League. Short-lived third major league in the early 1910s that attracted MLB players by offering higher wages and challeged the ML monopoly over player salaries. Anyway, I was responding to this:

Nothing great came from these leagues, practically all teams folded. The big four never absorbed any teams from these leagues either, well except the WHL but merely one team joined the NHL.

 

As previously mentioned, four former WHA teams joined the NHL, along with one former WHL team. That's five of the existing 30 NHL teams (one of every six).

Ten former AFL teams joined the NFL, as did four former AAFC teams (including San Francisco). That's 14 of 32 existing NFL teams (nearly one of every two).

Four MLS teams had roots in USL (Seattle, Portland, Montreal and Orlando). That's 4 of 20 existing MLS teams (one of every five).

I am less versed with pro basketball, but I can think of at least three ABA teams the NBA absorbed: the Brooklyn Nets, the Indiana Pacers and the San Antonio Spurs.

 

Was referring to my post.

 

And the Denver Nuggets.

 

Oh and you forgot Vancouver.

 

I stand corrected. With the correction, fully 25 percent of all MLS teams had their roots in a rival lower league.

 

Good question, I don't think we know at this point yet. Maybe a local can chime in when they here about tryouts.

 

I don't think any of them see it as a VC opportunity. That would presume really serious levels of stupidity and lack of research. I think they all know what they are getting into, even so, I expect a few of them to get cold feet if the losses exceed their expectations.

SF is extremely expensive, for anything, much less a professional sports team. It's not any investor/owner could not be aware of that, and I'm sure they all did at least some research.

On the upside, NASL is a whole lot less expensive than MLS, so this might work out for a few seasons anyway.

Go Deltas!!

- Mark

 

By my count they've already saved 97 million dollars! I think that could be spread out across a few years at least.

 

[QU OTE="Sam U El, post: 33805069, member: 228281"]So would this hypothesis be applied equally to LAFC? Or are they beyond failure?[/QUOTE]

Welp, the LAFC ownership have already spent 100 mil for the team and have already agreed to spend $250 mil for this


So I think they're properly capitalized for the venture.
I don't believe the delta's have expended money on the same level or are all these crazy videos they drop that damn pricey?

 

Not all MLS franchises cost $100M. Just because they didn't spend that much money, doesn't mean that they have it.

How many people do you know who could spare $3M to $5M for a soccer team that is unlikely to show a profit in the next ten to fifteen years?

Start up costs are likely to run $20 to $25M bare minimum. Then, they'll have on going operating costs. Everyone on the owners list needs to pony up serious cash, some of them more than others.

I hope they make this work. New TV deals for NASL suggests additional revenue streams. Maybe they can sell a ton of jerseys? There's no way they aren't going to lose their shirts for the next several years, at least.

Go Deltas!!

- Mark

 

@markmcf8 It was sarcastic rhetoric without the red typeset, my bad.

 

Unlikely to show a profit in the next ten to fifteen years? Wow, that is a long time. Just imagine where MLS was 10-15 years ago as opposed to now. If it takes that long, I doubt they will still be around by then. Let's hope it won't take that long for them to make a profit.

 

Sorry Squadron Leader, misunderstood your banter!

@falvo, plenty of MLS teams are still not making money. Owners make money when they sell their interest in the club.

@Sam U El, a more likely answer is LaF*ck have enough cash to sustain them for many years to come, and of course, MLS are likely to blow them as often as necessary. They could still fail though. Denizens of The Smog are notoriously poor sports fans. So they could fail, it's possible. But they have lots, and lots, and lots of cash. It will take a while for them to crash and burn if their project goes south.

F#$% el-lay!!
(Just so my bias is completely clear.)

 

Hell, there are still NBA teams that do not make profits.

 

Well, you keep posting that and a lot of posters also say the same thing but do any of us really know how much these billionaires lose or make? I just don't believe they are losing loads of money year after year. Maybe they aren't making it directly from the team or MLB/NBA/NFL like money but they are probably making revenue in other ways which isn't ever talked about or reported. I believe revenue is made in sponsorship's, TV, renting out the stadia for other events or in hosting friendly games against international opponents. I simply can not see how or why any investor/owner /operator would want to continue to lose money year in and year out without showing at least some return on his investment. I mean sooner or later, something has to give and its either fold , sell the club to someone else or move them. Knowing what a cheapskate Quakes owner Lew Wolff is for example, even at 80 years of age, I don't see why he would be in it if he keeps losing money.

 

What people seem to forget is that when you buy into MLS you also buy into SUM and from what I've heard that is money making aspect of "ownership" in MLS.

 

Yes thank you. I forgot about SUM money. That is actually a brilliant concept. I am more than sure none of us will ever know how much money is generated from SUM.