Why didn't Glazer save the Mutiny?

Uh...he likes to MAKE MONEY and not lose it?

 

This thread is now officially dead. Nothing left to discuss here.

 

Making money is his main objective, and I do not have any problem with that. However, I hope he will do some good things for US soccer, not just making money from the sport.

 

I have it on good authority that he's a Eurosnob and believes that American soccer is far inferior to the European game.

 

So...he's a realist.

C'mon kids, I like the MLS just as much as anyone else, but we have to face facts that Europe is collectively* light-years ahead of America.

*-by that I mean the whole industry: players, clubs, stadiums, atmosphere, etc. I also have no clue how to spell collectively.

 

Whether the Manchester United is better than MLS does not determine whether an investment on either makes money.

If I buy Manchester United for $2 billion and it makes $100 million per year, it will take me 20 years to make back my money. If no one else will buy it from me for more than $1.5 billion, I'm toast.

If I buy the Mutiny for $15 million, and the team only breaks even for a few years, but then starts to make $2 million a year, and because of that someone else is now willing to pay me $20 million, I make money.

A good club only makes a good investment at the right price. Similarly, a club in a weaker league has the potential to be a good investment, but also runs the risk of being a total write-off (see NASL clubs).

 

Welcome back to January of 2002, everybody.

 

If you go back to 2001/2002 (Tampa decision) and (2003) Man. U decision:

Man. U CLEARLY makes money...that really can't be disputed. It is a highly LIQUID investment.

Tampa (2001/2002) did not make money. It was a highly ILLIQUID investment

We do not know if Glazer could have made money or not owning RJ...but apparently the numbers weren't good enough for him to compensate for the risk factors...remember, this was pre-WC 2002 hype and pre-Freddy...and league was retrenching.

We can wax/wane all we want about soaring franchise values, but until we actually see evidence of them (has anyone? Is the Kroenke data available?), MLS remains a highly speculative investment. It is/was far from a given that increase in MLS franchise value will/would make up for someone in 2002 (like Glazer) footing losses for a few years. MLS teams are still, unfortunately, highly illiquid investments. However, obviously, there is enough evidence to also say demand has picked up a bit, and MLS may have found a decent working-towards-profit model with SSS/local community pay for model. Glazer, obviously, already had his stadium, but I am talking now about his share of OTHER TEAMS losses.

Again, increase in franchise values (MLS) is akin to investing in a tech start-up with good technology...you may hit it big, but you may go down too...maybe Glazer is just not so risk-friendly...you can hardly call him a guy who doesn't know what he's doing....he has his (investing) methodology and is obviously sticking with it (and who can fault him for that).

Also, he may not have liked Anschutz/Hunt domination of league (at this time), and all its ramifications (not insignificant, I may add).

Anschutz may ultimately turn out looking extremely smart on this one, but I can see where big money might get scared- especially back in 2002/2001.

Ironically (or not), I think the single-entity concept/salary cap will make MLS look much better in next couple years given atomic fall-out from coming hockey stalemate (talk about a sport that will likely GO DOWN in investors' eyes)..

 

The fact that Man U makes money does not mean that an investor buying shares will make money on the investment. I was just trying to make a point about valuation. Buying a MLS team is a speculative investment, but buying shares in Man U is also a speculative investment. What matters is the relationship between how much you paid for the share you bought and what someone else will pay for it. What someone else will pay is strongly related to how much money the team makes per share, but there are other factors as well.

An investor can overpay for a club that is outrageously profitable; sometimes, an investor can buy that outrageously profitable club for a cheap price.

An investor can overpay for a club that loses money; sometimes, an investor can buy that money-losing club and someone will be willing to offer much more for it in a few years.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong. I'm saying that the argument that "Man U makes money and is therefore is a good investment" ignores valuation, which is critical to discussing whether or not an investment makes sense.

 

Dude, there is a fairly rational pricing mechanism in play for Man. U shares...almost no market is "speculation free" but outside of Tbonds, gvt. bonds currencies, stock market about as liquid as it gets.

Tampa 2002...uh...just slightly a different story....about as ILLIQUID as one can get...

So the entire valuation argument is silly...in 2002, Tampa's supposedly "valuation" range was so large (think swing from $millions negative to $millions positive) that even using the term valuation was irrelevant....no rationally training valuation expert could be put a valuation on it that makes ANY SENSE.....Man. U has positive cash flow that can be discounted, and thus using technical valuation analysis, one can arrive at a valuation which +/- most experts would concern is accurate/fairly accurate...

 

One can value liquid and illiquid assets. One can also value assets with and without positive cash flows.

There are other ways of valuing assets than discounting cash flows. It's not silly, it's necessary. Sometimes, an owner wants to sell something that doesn't have positive cash flows, and someone else wants to buy it. The seller doesn't want their valuation experts to say "sell for zero because you have no cash flow;" likewise, the buyer knows they'll have to pay more than zero to get the seller to sell. Each has to use a valuation method based on something other than discounting future cash flows.

 

Beat to death....cyber handshake from me, and good luck....may you live long enough to own the railroad tracks for which huge sums of money will be paid to you so that little glass tubes can live happy and unlit...

 

Whatever the merits of buying into MLS, it's clear Glazer didn't want to own an MLS team. That's a sufficient reason in itself that he shouldn't own one.

 

Sweet. The World Cup is coming up, Ray Hudson is going to turn DC United around, and I have a job.

 

Let's forget about investment for a moment. If you want to impress your millionaire friends, would you rather jet them into Manchester to watch a ManU match in a luxury box, or would you jet them into Tampa to watch a Mutiny match in a luxury box located in a mostly empty stadium?

 

Actually, you spelled it correctly.

 

Call me crazy, but I like our chances against Portugal.

 

Re: Why didn't Glazer save the Fusion?

From the insiders that were involved in the deal it was simply a matter of SEM. he didnt want to be invloved in single entity. Thats it!! Not everybody wants that. Maybe he will change his mond a couple of years. It doesnt take away from the fact that Tampa Bay and Miami sports markets are very very difficult.