Revs GM statesKrafts have lost a ton of money on soccer

The "Good News Fairy" has arrived.

Thanks for the link.

 

CSN: Are you guys on a break-even budget for this year?

Todd Smith: No. I don't think any team is, certainly not within the structure of the league.

 

Thanks for the link, Andy.

"...certainly not within the structure of the league" is an interesting phrase. I'll let others parse that every which way they want.

 

dont listen to this guy. he is a complete moron.

 

Talk about misrepresenting an interview Andy. Ges.

 

That's out of context. What he said was "under the structure of the league" no team is making money. Duh. With Metro losing money by the bucketload, they lose enough to wipe out the profits of all the other teams combined. And how a team that cost 5 million to buy and 5 million a year to operate cannot be making money in a stadium he owns is beyond me.

15,000 fans times 14 games times 15 bucks equals 3.1 million dollars on ticket revenue alone. Does not include signage, concessions, parking, souvenirs, and local sponsors. Add in just 5 dollars a game per person extra on whatever else, and you add a million. 10 dollars to park 5,000 cars adds 700,000 in parking revenue.

And for Kraft, I don't care. They have more money that we'll ever see.

 

We've been over the idea that there's 4 ways of looking at profitable. Let's take the Crew as an example.

1. Does Lamar make money on soccer in Columbus?
2. Does Lamar make money on the Crew? (The difference between this and #1 is that #1 would include money from concerts, internationals, high school football, etc. This and #3 and #4 ONLY count MLS stuff.)
3. Do the Crew make money if you DON'T count their share of league losses?
4. Do the Crew make money if you DO count their share of league losses?

To me, the phrase "within the structure of the league" isn't in there by accident. It precludes the Crew making money by the toughest definition, #4.

I think we all knew that already.

The fact that he had to throw that phrase in there indicates, to me, that the Crew make money for Hunt by one of the other 3 definitions.

And I think we all knew that already, as well.

If anything, that phrase indicates that the loosest definition, #1, isn't necessary. To me, this is a sign that the Crew helps Hunt by definition #2 or #3.

I had a hard time following this. The way the answer touches on both competitive issues and financial issues, I found confusing. I can't figure out whether he's saying the Krafts make money on the Revs (which is possible, I guess, esp. if you throw in that the USSF wouldn't give CMGI games without the Revs), but STILL aren't happy, because the team stinks. OR, is he saying the team is losing money for the Krafts (maybe including their share of league losses, and maybe not), period, and then threw in the wins and losses comment as an afterthought.

 

Well...let's take some fake data and run with it...

Revenues:
NE: +1M
Metro: -3M
DC: 0M
Clb: +1M
Chi: -3M
LA: -3M
SJ: -5M
Col: +2M
KC: -2M
Dal: -2M
----------
League: -14M/yr
49% of local expenses stay local and 51% go to league in Single Entity (and Dallas is 100% league) so...
League shared expenses: -8M/yr
Team SEM costs: -0.67M each

Bottom Line:
NE: -0.2M
Metro: -1.7M
DC: -0.7M
Clb: -0.2M
Chi: -2.2M
LA: -2.2M
SJ: -3.2M
Col: +0.3M
KC: -1.7M
Dal: -1.7M

Just hypothetical, but I'd agree that no team is in the black (maybe Colorado this year with 22K attendance and MUCH better stadium deal) when you factor in 51% of a team's bottom line is also the league's bottom line.

 

Whatever sourpuss.

Don't talk to other Big Soccer members that way. You're not untouchable you know.

You might look good in Yellow.

 

Andy, to be fair, when I read the piece, I was surprised at the weight given to various issues. From your post, I thought it was going to revolve around financial questions, when it was more geared toward Rev-specific win-loss issues.

 

Was this necessary in public?

 

###MODERATOR'S NOTE###

Calm down, everyone. You guys know better.

Andy was just passing on what Todd Smith said about the Revs' business side in an article that did deal with mostly on-the-field issues. It's up to everyone for themselves to decide whether Smith is speaking the gospel truth or whether nadpolice9 is right.

 

I wonder how much the Revolution and Crew pay to companies owned or controlled by Kraft and Hunt? For all I know, CMGI charges the Patriots and Revolution a kazillion dollars in rent each year... dooming them to the red every year.

The point is, the owner's can hide the coin a hundred different ways. Only the owners know whether they're making any money. An owner telling you his team won't break even is absolutely worthless.

What I am sure of, however, is that the profits or losses of MLS and its teams are TRIVIAL compared to the net worth of the owner's.

 

2,423 word article.

"The one thing that has been constant through this is that they have lost, on any scale, a tremendous amount of money to support soccer in this area."

28 words.

"No. I don't think any team is, certainly not within the structure of the league. We're trying our best to close the gap, and we'll see what the future holds for us."

32 words.

The rest did not mention money or losses. If that's the focus you want to make on the article fine. For me, it is a complete misrepresentation. I'd read that article before and expected a total different link. The article was a reaction to the badering that Todd got from Gus Martins and the people on the Revs board. He was looking for sympathy by mentioning those "facts".

But fine. Tell me to bite you and ************ off and that I'm an idiot. Great. Very inappropriate.

And Chad, great of you to focus on my simple statement that to focus on someone telling a fellow member to ************ off.

 

Business is also the operations of an organization. That was discussed alot.

My one line statement was probably over the top. I should have writen more, but got caught up with something at work.

I think its a shame that Todd chose that forum to share that information because I think he was looking for sympathy.

IMO, there was alot more to the article, that's all.

My statement wasn't meant to turn your screws, that's for sure.

 

A couple things.

If Garber has read this interview, I imagine he does not agree. First, no doubt, Todd Smith is not in the inner circle of the financial gurus at MLS so he is talking off the top of his head - like me.

Second, Garber has stated on repeated occasion that the Crew make money. That I remember for sure. Garber may have also said that the Revs make money.

The key here is how Todd and MLS want to define profitable. Money into pocket A (Revs), transfer to pocket B (the razor) to pocket C (Kraft). Pocket A is empty.

Just to be fair:

I read this column a few days ago even though the money mentioned is a small part of the article, it is the one thing I remembered most - because it was most disturbing as well as opposite what Garber has been repeating.

Two of the finest posters on BS trading punches - can't we all get along?

 

Thanks Andy.

 

###MODERATOR'S NOTE###

Edited to note you two have shaken hands. Thanks.

---------------------------

Personally, I think GPK is right in that Smith's looking to get his side of the story out there, and finding CyberSoccerNews to be willing to let him get his side out there. Classic spin/damage control, as the cynic said.

 

Was this before The Crash, or since?