With a near-sellout this weekend, Columbus will match last year's attendance average. It is thus safe to assume that MLS will report another profit for the Crew. This year, Colorado will post around 280,000 spectators, most in the league and an improvement of around 65,000 from 2001 (at least an extra $1M). Further, Colorado will not have to underwite the losses of Tampa Bay and Miami (assuming that Miami actually did lose money). Additionally, TV losses have been pushed over to SUM. So, what I am asking is if anyone knows about the Rapids deal at Invesco Field. How much control of parking and conecessions do they have? What is the cost of the lease? It would seem that Colorado is primed to post a profit this year if their deal is even half as good as the Crew's. If the Rapids do in fact post a profit in 2002, that will leave LA, Columbus and Colrado all with a profitable outlook for 2003 (and NE not far off). With three (or even four) profitable teams out of ten under SEM, the other teams would all lose a lot less money than they currently are, since they would not have to udnerwrite as many losses. Let me put this another way--if Colorado posts a profit this year, the league as a whole is probably only be two SSS (DC and Metros) away from overall, permanent profitability. So, does anyone know the specifics of the Rapdis' deal at Invesco?
There was an article on here about a week ago where an official for the rapids said they would be the first team to turn a profit come 2004 because of they have a really good deal at the new stadium. I don't know if she was right or not. It seems hard to believe Columbus isn't profitable.
Not really. First, the Crew pay Hunt to rent the stadium. And whenever there are non-Crew matches at CCS, that money goes to Hunt, not the Crew. Now, if you said it's hard to believe Hunt doesn't make money on the Crew, I'll buy that.
I've seen reports that Columbus was profitable, but unfortunately I can't dig up any links (If I find them I'll post them). The closest I could come is a story that projects The Crew being profitable in year two of CCS: http://www.dispatch.com/news/sports99/CREW99/year1127.html
if hunt is making money because of ccs, then i think it is safe to say that we have no need to concern ourselves with the crew much the same with kraft, with the difference being whether or not kraft brings in enough money from rev functions to cover costs (i would imagine so, as he gets money that the revs don't get)
Here's an article about Columbus making a profit in 2001: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/us/news/2002/03/13/crew_preview/ Here is a relevant quote: "The Columbus Crew are already the Major League Soccer champion in one respect -- the one that matters most for a league still struggling for financial viability. They're the first team in the league to make money. " And here's a quote directly from Garber in the same article: "The team in Columbus is making money."
Can you provide a link to that article? I assume that the Rapids will have the same lease situation in 2004 as they have now. Considering this, I wonder if the Rapdis actually will make a profit on their own this year, but that they won't make a profit under SEM because the Galaxy will still lose money this year and because the Gire are losing so much more in Naperville than they did at Soldier Field.
As a coach in the Denver Metro Area, I can tell you that the Rapids organization does a terriffic job getting involved in the community. For example, they have put together a private training session for our club with their current and former iternational players. In return, they discounted some tickets for a particular game, and we bought over 400. They understand their product and their market. As for the business side, I would speculate that there is a very strong relationship between Anschutz Entertainment Group, the Broncos and Invesco.
You can't assume that Rapids' attendance increases will continue. They had the US v. Mex doubleheader last spring which will really helped their overall attendance this year. Next year and following years may not have this attendance "bump". I'm not holding this against Colorado as many a club have had such bumps; I'm just warning you that next year the Rapids' attendance is likely to go down (unless they have other big drrawing doubleheaders).
According to news articles last winter, the Rapids got a new lease paying rent of $20,000/game and (IIRC) getting half of all parking and concession revenue. (p.s. - info like this needs to be in a sticky in the MLS Expansion and Stadiums section. Why don't the mods maintain FAQs for each forum?)
I'm curious, I really don't know much about the nuts and bolt of single-entity. How do sponsorship deals fit into this? When, say, Pepsi is a sponsor of MLS, do each team get a cut of the money to be included in their earnings? Do they get to count that when they total up the books at the end of the fiscal year? Just curious.
Actually, all of the $$$ from Pepsi, Yahoo, etc. go to the league's bottom line. Local sponsorships, like Old Navy for DC United, go to the team's bottom line. Not sure how expenses are accounted though. Sachin
Re: Re: What's the Rapids deal? Thanks for the info Geoduck--exactly what I was looking for! With this deal, the Rapids simply must be profitabile this year if the Crew were last year. This year, the Rapids will have 50,000+ more fans than the Crew did last year. Even if the Crew have a free lease (they don't) and take in 100% of all parking and concessions (they don't), the Rapids would still be less than $1M behind the Crew in total revenue. I will be stunned if MLS doesn't report a profit for the Rapdis this year. They will probably even credit contraction as one of the main causes. This is great news--there will be 4 profitable teams in 2004 (Colorado and LA moving into the black should push NE over the top). The league really is on the brink of overall profitability. Two more SSS (with one of them in either DC or NY/NJ) should do it.
I agree with you. However, removing the USA vs Mexico game, we'd have a 17K+ ave/game which is still above last year's ave/game in the mid 16K range. So it's not hard to suggest the Rapids ave/game next year will be 17K+ or better per game (improve again). I'll also direct you to read a rant of mine on BS here. The rent is indeed $20,000/game. I also believe the concessions and parking percentage to AEG is only 33% (not 50%) but can't find an article to proove it. The other key is that the Rapids can separately sell club/box/suites seats to games (not possible at the old Mile High). The $1 for a giant beer and giant taco setup was done with AT&T's help (and Budweiser, Pepsi, and Illegal Pete's for drink/food) on their private property only 10 yards from the Invesco box office making it possible to circumvent the impossibly pricey mandated costs of Three Tomatoes catering (monopoly deal for food on Invesco property).