News: Were now the second most valuable club in MLS

562nation · Jul 12, 2012

i saw this link in a NY Daily News Soccer blog
http://www.brandfinance.com/images/upload/brandfinance_football_brands_2012.pdf

We are in the top 50 worldwide the funny thing is it shows our brand is worth more than chivas and club america worldwide which was surprising. to bad we don't spend like they do on players.

check it out a good read pages 14 and 15

esco300 · Jul 12, 2012

Sounders Top 40 and Galaxy Top 50 ? and how come we are not spending like it ?and why so many restrictions on our spending? MLS needs to let the big clubs get bigger and the Small clubs to try to catch up otherwise LA , SEA, NY will never be respected globally

Vindo310 · Jul 13, 2012

esco300 said: ↑

Sounders Top 40 and Galaxy Top 50 ? and how come we are not spending like it ?and why so many restrictions on our spending? MLS needs to let the big clubs get bigger and the Small clubs to try to catch up otherwise LA , SEA, NY will never be respected globally
Click to expand...

Weak! I don't think I want to watch without a salary cap.

dashiel · Jul 13, 2012

We define the brand as the trademark and associated intellectual property. Football clubs are made up of a mixture of fixed tangible assets (stadium, training ground) and disclosed intangible assets (purchased players) with brand value, internally developed players & goodwill making up the difference to provide the combined clubs value.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Seattle’s stadium was counted as an asset and if that skewed the results?

The Cadaver · Jul 13, 2012

dashiel said: ↑

I wonder if Seattle’s stadium was counted as an asset and if that skewed the results?
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem likely. The stadium was there long before the MLS-edition Sounders came into being, and Sounders are still the secondary user compared to Seahawks. I would be much surprised if the Sounders weren't tenants much the way LAG is, and in neither case would the fixed asset be part of the equation. The value of the lease, however, would be an asset to the club. Given the size, location and crowds attracted to the stadium, I suspect SSFC's LEASE is a more valuable asset than the LAG lease of HDC.

dashiel · Jul 13, 2012

The Cadaver said: ↑

Doesn't seem likely. The stadium was there long before the MLS-edition Sounders came into being, and Sounders are still the secondary user compared to Seahawks. I would be much surprised if the Sounders weren't tenants much the way LAG is, and in neither case would the fixed asset be part of the equation. The value of the lease, however, would be an asset to the club. Given the size, location and crowds attracted to the stadium, I suspect SSFC's LEASE is a more valuable asset than the LAG lease of HDC.
Click to expand...

That’s what’s throwing me. You take out the stadium (which I agree) and Seattle has very little in the way of intangible assets. I’d be hard pressed to name more than a handful of current Sounders’ players, they don’t do much in the way of overseas touring. The fan base is very solid and their kit sponsorship deal with Xbox has more clout than Herbalife and they do make more money. I just find it hard to believe licensing the Galaxy brand would be less expensive than the Sounders.

That being said I have no idea why I give a monkey’s either.

galvanator · Jul 13, 2012

So I was skimming through the list of teams and the Rochester Rhinos are listed at 165. And the league they are listed under is Major League Soccer...