Seattle Sounders could make $20+ mil profits every year

[Dust2]

Revenue: According to Forbes, LA Galaxy (http://soccernews.bigsoccer.com/topic/LA_Galaxy) generated $36 mil revenue in 2007 with 24,259 announced attendance. Seattle should generate at least $40 mil revenue with 36,000 paid attendance in 2010.

Expense: $20 mil is a very conservative estimate err on the HIGH side. Will expenses really be that high? Front office cost, travel, DP salary above $425,000, training facility, rent, scouting etc... Typical MLS team expense is about $10-12 million.

Seattle 2010 revenue: $40 mil
Seattle 2010 expense: $20 mil
__________________________
Seattle 2010 profits: $20 mil

If Seattle can continue to draw, I don't see why it can't make $20+ mil profits a year for the next 5 years. The big question is that will some fans be fed up with a $2.6 mil products while their owners pocket $20+ mil profits?

[Super]

If Seattle can continue to draw, I don't see why it can't make $20+ mil profits a year for the next 5 years. The big question is that will some fans be fed up with a $2.6 mil products while their owners pocket $20+ mil profits?

Absolutely guaranteed to be fed up in time. You already started to see it in Toronto last year when the stadium was half empty most of the second part of the season. The bigger the draws and attention in local markets, the greater the expectations you'll see as well. It'll pass though in time when people figure out that drawing 30-40,000 per game gives you little to no advantage over teams who draw 9,000. So, yes, people will leave - and maybe go to Disney Land instead when they want to see a Mickey Mouse product.

The answer to a proper, respectable league is to allow financially successful clubs to spend more on the on-field product. This is the ONLY way these clubs will remain financially successful - otherwise fans will in time turn their backs on the product, and so will sponsors. It'll happen in Seattle, and it'll happen in Toronto. Fans and sponsors will want to know that all this cash we're putting into the clubs makes a difference, and that clubs/cities with virtually no interest in the sport does not have the same chance of winning - which is illogical to footy fans with at least a LITTLE bit of experience watching the game on the world stage. May work for hockey fans, but certainly not footy fans. It just isn't done. Free agency for players, and clubs should be able to own their own player-contract, AND a significant lift to the salary cap would mature the MLS to the level of international clubs - and thus gain the respect of the large groups of footy fanatics who have thus far rejected the MLS game in the US and Canada.

I predict that this league will finally wake up and stop with the plastic regulations and open up for REAL competition between markets. Right now it's a random, roll-the-dice, type of league, that really interests nobody. Sure, Toronto people care about TFC, but that's because nothing beats a live experience - which is great because of the atmosphere. The play itself is pretty bad, though. I liken it to second division Danish football, or maybe League One in England. Most (99%) of people here do not follow the MLS closely, they'll continue to follow overseas footy. Yes, they'll go see TFC, but I know TONS of people who don't even watch TFC on TV when they play on the road - just because the product is so poor.

This needs to change!

[ensco]

^I agree with every bit of this. It's obvious.

I want the strike to happen. I think it would be hugely in TFC's interest for MLS to fail and something else to replace it, centered around the 4 or 5 successful franchises, who are liberated to compete properly and find their level in the global marketplace.

(Cue the "anyone who thinks that is an ingrate" posts.)

[Super]

^I agree with every bit of this. It's obvious.

I want the strike to happen. I think it would be hugely in TFC's interest for MLS to fail and something else to replace it, centered around the 4 or 5 successful franchises, who are liberated to compete properly and find their level in the global marketplace.

(Cue the "anyone who thinks that is an ingrate" posts.)

Well, I wouldn't go as far as hoping that the MLS fails. However, if it is immediately replaced by a more ambitious league that would allow larger footy markets to prosper and succeed more than shit markets, then sure, let's jump ship.

[Detroit_TFC]

It took almost 20 years to reestablish division one soccer in North America after NASL failed, and it took major leverage from FIFA via WC 94 to make it happen. If you think that a better and more world integrated division one would blossom in N.A. if MLS failed, you are out of your minds.

[Pookie]

The big question is that will some fans be fed up with a $2.6 mil products while their owners pocket $20+ mil profits?

What a convenient way to... once again... express your argument for increasing spending as a function of revenue.

[rocker]

Absolutely guaranteed to be fed up in time. You already started to see it in Toronto last year when the stadium was half empty most of the second part of the season.

What does that have to do with anything but the fact TFC wasn't winning?

If TFC wins more games you can bet BMO Field will be packed as always.

[Super]

What does that have to do with anything but the fact TFC wasn't winning?

If TFC wins more games you can bet BMO Field will be packed as always.

And we may have to spend a billion dollars to get there ;)

[Pookie]

Absolutely guaranteed to be fed up in time. You already started to see it in Toronto last year when the stadium was half empty most of the second part of the season. The bigger the draws and attention in local markets, the greater the expectations you'll see as well. It'll pass though in time when people figure out that drawing 30-40,000 per game gives you little to no advantage over teams who draw 9,000. So, yes, people will leave - and maybe go to Disney Land instead when they want to see a Mickey Mouse product.,

This is a bit of a funny argument you are putting forward.

On one hand, Seattle and Toronto draw the numbers they are drawing with the product as is. Indicating that "product" isn't necessarily the driving factor influencing a fans' ticket choice.

Yet, you seem to pin the impending doom on the "product" that will turn fans away.

This argument is even more interesting in the sense that this "product" doesn't really compete with any other "product" given the start and finish of the season. The bulk of MLS games are played when top flight leagues are in shut down mode.


The answer to a proper, respectable league is to allow financially successful clubs to spend more on the on-field product.

So, outside of player salaries, there is no cap on any spending that could improve a team. I say that assuming that any increase in cap would actually go to new, higher quality players instead of just paying the same guys more... but I digress.

We are dropping $5.5M on a heated grass pitch with the idea that players that once avoided us (eg. Huckerby) will consider Toronto. We have an advantage over existing Turf teams and considering the quality, may have an advantage over grass teams.

There is no cap on coaching, training, off field opportunities, endorsements, quality of life (why not fly them around on a luxury plane vs Porter Air)?

High revenue clubs are free to invest in anything and everything that they think could improve the team and/or the chances to land quality players.


This is the ONLY way these clubs will remain financially successful - otherwise fans will in time turn their backs on the product, and so will sponsors.

Spending is the only way to remain financially successful?

Really?

Have you seen the status of the EPL lately? Every club in debt? 2 Clubs up for sale for over 2 years with no buyers?

We have cities lining up to get in to this league because of the financial model. If Dust2 is right and Seattle can generate $20M in net profit annually, EPL teams would kill for that kind of financial statement.

I'd call that a financial success, no?

[ag futbol]

Ok, but with all due respect, MLS is drastically under investing in their product leaving the successful markets under-developed. The stance they have that you can't up things that will improve the on-field product until every team is profitable is frankly ridiculous.

Let me give you a very simple example. As part of my business degree i had to interview a local entrepreneur. He in his early days had invented an online payment system. The product was coming along nicely, but of his own admission he didn't want to put the extra money into marketing / promoting it on a large scale. Well, unfortunately for him paypal came along and blew the shit out of his little payment service, rendering it worthless. While he has become successful in his other ventures, he knows he probably missed the boat on half a billion dollars because he under invested in his product.

Now i know it's unlikely that say the USL comes around and blows up MLS with it's business model but there are plenty of other scenarios out there that spell trouble for driving the bus at 2 km an hour it's going currently. As pointed out, fans losing interest in previously successful markets is a problem (please note this happened at the outset as well). Having live games substituted by say enhanced EPL coverage on TV is another. Or, the last which I would be greatly concerned about is that the game itself goes from being the hot thing with plenty of growth potential to just another sporting property that has to scrap for expansion like everyone else.

Most businesses DO NOT have the luxury of wrapping everything up in a neat little bow, then going forward with large investments / expansions. In part because of competition, and in part because investment in many cases leads to profitability in and of itself.

[ag futbol]

Have you seen the status of the EPL lately? Every club in debt? 2 Clubs up for sale for over 2 years with no buyers?

We have cities lining up to get in to this league because of the financial model. If Dust2 is right and Seattle can generate $20M in net profit annually, EPL teams would kill for that kind of financial statement.

I'd call that a financial success, no?
Careful, there's lot's of holes in that.

First of all, most EPL clubs are profitable from their operations. What's killing them is leverage, which can be a problem in any business. Don't confuse your financing mix with your actual business.

Second, comparing the way the EPL spends to the way MLS spends is like the guy under the bridge with a shopping cart filled with small change looking at the guy in the mansion and saying "he's spending too much". There is a huge middle ground to be explored.

My last point is that, how do you think the EPL got so big in the first place? You think EPL finances are bad, take a look around Europe. England pulled away from the pack because they invested in players, stadiums, and in management to develop things like TV rights and global brand expansion. This by and large has been a huge win for them, and they'd never be there unless they opened their wallet to expand the business.

There are plenty of ways to take this thing forward at a faster speed than it is currently without running the train off the tracks or creating an imminent blowup soccer experienced with the NASL.

[Beach_Red]

Are we convinced there's a big market for pro soccer in enough markets in the US?

There are some very successful specialty restaurants in some big cities that can't be franchised out to every town in the US. American football is a Big Mac, so is baseball and basketball. Hockey isn't.

Is soccer?

[Pookie]

First of all, most EPL clubs are profitable from their operations. What's killing them is leverage, which can be a problem in any business. Don't confuse your financing mix with your actual business.

Actually, you'll find that Aston Villa, Bolton, Chelsea, Hull City, Liverpool, Manchester City, Man United, Middlesbrough, Newcastle (2008), Portsmouth, Stoke, Sunderland, West Ham and Wigan all posted a net loss before tax for the year 2008.

14 Clubs is sort of a sad majority.

This link gives a fairly detailed picture of each club's financial issues:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt



My last point is that, how do you think the EPL got so big in the first place? You think EPL finances are bad, take a look around Europe. England pulled away from the pack because they invested in players, stadiums, and in management to develop things like TV rights and global brand expansion. This by and large has been a huge win for them, and they'd never be their unless they opened their wallet to expand the business.

There are plenty of ways to take this thing forward at a faster speed than it is currently without running the train off the tracks or creating an imminent blowup soccer experienced with the NASL.

With the exception of salaries, which are going up in a controlled manner, MLS teams are investing in stadiums, management and other things related to growing the brand.

It may not be a fast train but investors are lining up to buy tickets. That is an important factor.

If there was a better way, would these investors not consider doing what the WHA did to the NHL or the USFL did to the NFL? Obviously, there is room for growth but the foundation seems solid given the interest.

I wouldn't blow it up because of what you see in Toronto and Seattle. Toronto BTW was only projected to be a 14,000/game excuse to build the FIFA U20 Soccer stadium. We are way to early in this process to consider radical changes to the structure.

[ensco]

We are way to early in this process to consider radical changes to the structure.

The success of TFC, Seattle, Philly, NY, is in spite of the structure, not because of it.

The financial issues in the EPL (and Spain and Italy) are irrelevant. They are a function of the ownership situations for those teams, and the extreme rewards that come with success over there (but which in fact most don't attain). Nobody is suggesting we compete against those leagues for players.

But MLS is only a League One product. You can't put teams in major cosmopolitan cities, with deep soccer fan bases, and expect that to work over time.

[ag futbol]

Actually, you'll find that Aston Villa, Bolton, Chelsea, Hull City, Liverpool, Manchester City, Man United, Middlesbrough, Newcastle (2008), Portsmouth, Stoke, Sunderland, West Ham and Wigan all posted a net loss before tax for the year 2008.
Well first, you'd have to adjust that for interest expense (because that plays into financing). Second, you'd have to consider brand value, because it tangible when you sell the business and can lead to future revenues.

There's other measurement errors into it as well. Financial statements are a tool for you to start with when analyzing a business, not an ends. You can't put John Terry or Wayne Rooney on the balance sheet. You can't depreciate their transfer fees, you have to lump it up front in the income statement. So take City for example. They've spent tons of money on transfers, they have to take all in the form of a loss on the income statement because of GAAP. But realistically, are these players assets? yes. Is it likely they will lead to increased revenues in the future? yes. Do they have value? yes. So unfortunately this investment leads to a loss but... In the future, they'll probably start showing greater profits, realistically this should be smoothed out rather than lumped up front.


With the exception of salaries, which are going up in a controlled manner, MLS teams are investing in stadiums, management and other things related to growing the brand.

It may not be a fast train but investors are lining up to buy tickets. That is an important factor.
You can dress up a turd all you want, but it's still a turd. We can agree to disagree on this but IMO product quality has to improve for this league to grow revenues.

As I said, you can't just ask everyone to stand around + hold their balls while you get your shit in order in terms of stadiums and such. Is what you're leaving off the table in the big markets greater than what you'd lose in the shit ones by some increased measure of spending?

If markets like Seattle and Toronto are allowed to downslope, we'll see how long MLS has investors knocking on its door to get in. Because it drastically changes their prognosis in terms of future expectations.

[Beach_Red]

The success of TFC, Seattle, Philly, NY, is in spite of the structure, not because of it.




You may be right about the reason for the success, but I don't believe Toronto would have a team in a league without spending caps. That may also be true of these other cities, we don't know for sure.

[rocker]

I think MLS quality has improved in the three years I've watched MLS.
Not by leaps and bounds, but it has improved in my eyes.

If that's not fast enough for the digital generation that wants everything immediately, then that's not MLS's problem.

I think the slow growth model is fine (MLS is better off now than it was 4 years ago).

I doubt people watching League 1 or the Championship sit around and complain about the quality of their leagues the way MLS fans always do.

The fact is, MLS will never be the EPL... it'll never be La Liga. People will ALWAYS complain about the quality. The notion that we should keep spending more to chase some unknown standard is a fool's game.

They could raise the cap to 10 million tomorrow, and then what? We get better quality but it'll still not be even a top league... Once the floor raises, the complains will continue anew. Why don't we spend 15 million? Why don't we spend 20 million? It's a chase we don't need. Would the quality of the league at a 10 million cap be enough to satisfy people? Who knows?

It also will inflate salaries for players we already have. the domestic player pool is not ready yet for this.

[ensco]

You may be right about the reason for the success, but I don't believe Toronto would have a team in a league without spending caps. That may also be true of these other cities, we don't know for sure.

Why? Why would any wealthy owner feel that way?

My opinion is that, for the Leafs anyway, MLSE must regret supporting the lockout and the resulting salary cap. They'll never get the $50 million back that they lost that year, and the NHL cap rules have eliminated MLSE's ability to use their financial resources to compete. The cap has seriously hurt the Leafs.

[Beach_Red]

The fact is, MLS will never be the EPL... it'll never be La Liga. People will ALWAYS complain about the quality. The notion that we should keep spending more to chase some unknown standard is a fool's game.




If teams in places like New York, LA and Chicago are never going to be on the same level as teams in smaller European cities, that says something about the level soccer can achieve in the US.

So, MLS will only ever be as successful in the US as AAA baseball?

[Beach_Red]

Why? Why would any wealthy owner feel that way?




Because so many sports leagues have failed in North America (not just soccer) and the most successful league (NFL) has a spending limit.

And because there are no other potential owners in Toronto. There are no individual wealthy sports team owners in Toronto and no one is stepping up.

[ag futbol]

I think MLS quality has improved in the three years I've watched MLS.
Not by leaps and bounds, but it has improved in my eyes.

If that's not fast enough for the digital generation that wants everything immediately, then that's not MLS's problem. That's a problem of perception.

I think the slow growth model is fine (MLS is better off now than it was 4 years ago).

I doubt people watching League 1 or the Championship sit around and complain about the quality of their leagues the way MLS fans always do.
If the digital generation is your customer base, it is your problem.

At the rate we are increasing right now, it will probably take us about 10 years to rival Scandinavian leagues in terms of wage bills. And that's not even withstanding the growth of the rest of the world.

I think quality has improved slightly as well. But it's not being pushed enough IMO. The league is leaving money off the table, and it might not be there in the future.

Market A spending more money and Market B losing more money are not mutually inclusive. Expanding your business can't always be about propping up the weakest links.

[ag futbol]

Because so many sports leagues have failed in North America (not just soccer) and the most successful league (NFL) has a spending limit.

Of note, not every NFL team spends the same. In fact if you check the wage bills, the salaries vary by HUGE amounts.

Somewhere along the line people got the idea that because the NFL has a cap everyone is equal, this is 100% not true. MLS is not following a NFL model in this sense. Their sense of equality is much more strict.

[Beach_Red]

Of note, not every NFL team spends the same. In fact if you check the wage bills, the salaries vary by HUGE amounts.

Somewhere along the line people got the idea that because the NFL has a cap everyone is equal, this is 100% not true. MLS is not following a NFL model in this sense. Their sense of equality is much more strict.

Sure, that's true. Though with allocation moey and the DP rule not all MLS teams are spending the same either.

[ag futbol]

Sure, that's true. Though with allocation moey and the DP rule not all MLS teams are spending the same either.
But in the NFL's case spending flexibility still comes as the result of economic might and not just equality.

In MLS, this only occurs through the DP rule and frankly the league isn't getting the most out of that investment. If any DP team could spend across the roster rather than on one guy the quality of the league would be through the roof. And we wouldn't even be talking about them spending any more than they are currently! I still think the league needs stars, but is TFC or NY really a better squad for having a Juan Pablo Angel or JDG as opposed to 5 or 6 extra guys on max money?

I think there are very few Beckham's out there, and for the most part the league would be better off investing across rosters, creating their own stars, rather than buying someone else's brand...

[jazzy]

You may be right about the reason for the success, but I don't believe Toronto would have a team in a league without spending caps. That may also be true of these other cities, we don't know for sure.

We need caps, but more importantly, more freedom for the teams and players, the basic wage HAS to up, but as Moe does say, the teams should be able to raise raw talent and sell them for their gain, this is where MLSE would see a defintie business advantage, then I don't mind a rule that does say a majority of the profit has to be reinvested into the team ...does this work?

[ag futbol]

We need caps, but more importantly, more freedom for the teams and players, the basic wage HAS to up, but as Moe does say, the teams should be able to raise raw talent and sell them for their gain, this is where MLSE would see a defintie business advantage, then I don't mind a rule that does say a majority of the profit has to be reinvested into the team ...does this work?
I would argue it doesn't under the current structure.

First reason being that creative accounting allows you wiggle room. Many of these guys are investing in their teams anyways, so you get 5M from Edu or 10M from Altidore. TFC and RBNY say "look we invested in grass and a practice facility"... they were going to do it anyway. Plenty of examples of this on a smaller scale. Unless the league is very strictly monitoring investment relative to transfer fees (which would be really hard to administer) I don't think there is as much extra money coming back into the system as they might like us to believe.

[Pookie]

You may be right about the reason for the success, but I don't believe Toronto would have a team in a league without spending caps. That may also be true of these other cities, we don't know for sure.

This is an extremely important point that we all need to learn.

BMO Field wasn't built for TFC. It was built for the FIFA U20 Championships. TFC as a concept didn't exist until this FIFA/BMO process started.

An MLS Team was purchased in order to fill out rental dates to help pay back some of the investment as a condition of the original stadium plans.

That investment equation was made palatable by the cost structure that exists in the league. It was low risk considering the cut that they would get from the FIFA events and ongoing "Entertainment" bookings.

It was thought it could draw 14,000 fans (according to official City documents) and would augment concerts and community rentals in order to be useful after the projected cash injection of the FIFA event.

Obviously, the success of TFC and by events like Real Madrid, highlight there is money to be made here. Hence the investment in the grass. But the money to be made uses the cost certainty model of the MLS as the basis for its equations.

Never forget though that without the the award of the FIFA U20 and approval for BMO Field, we would not have an MLS team.

[ensco]

^Most of these are opinions, not facts. Maybe it's just the tone in which it's presented. At any rate, it's just not true.

For one thing, the public use was a big reason BMO was built. For another, BMO was part of the revitalization plan for the Ex. And lastly, and most relevant to this discussion, BMO was clearly built to support a pro soccer team. That was not some sort of ancillary objective.

[ag futbol]

Yeah problem I see is that franchises are not symmetrical. Not in terms of market conditions, franchise sizes, and overall impact.

If Seattle goes from 20M a year in profits to 10M this has exactly the same impact as the current loses suffered by 4 or 4 teams we'd currently say are financially lagging.

If you give the biggest the means to grow, that money can still allocated back to the smaller teams without some run-away spending scenario everyone seems to think is imminent.

[Beach_Red]

^Most of these are opinions, not facts. Maybe it's just the tone in which it's presented. At any rate, it's just not true.

For one thing, the public use was a big reason BMO was built. For another, BMO was part of the revitalization plan for the Ex. And lastly, and most relevant to this discussion, BMO was clearly built to support a pro soccer team. That was not some sort of ancillary objective.


Okay, but MLS had been around for 10 years and no ownership was stepping forward in Toronto.

Toronto is a banking city, it's a financial city, but it's not an entrepeneurial city. That's my opinion, of course.

[ensco]

Okay, but MLS had been around for 10 years and no ownership was stepping forward in Toronto.

Toronto is a banking city, it's a financial city, but it's not an entrepeneurial city. That's my opinion, of course.

That is all true.

The history doesn't matter anyway. We got here however we got here. The point is, if you owned TFC now, what's your biggest risk? imho, it's that your MLS partners are going to screw this thing up for you, sort of like your NHL partners did.

[RicoSuave44]

I am loving this thread. Bump!

[Pookie]

^Most of these are opinions, not facts. Maybe it's just the tone in which it's presented. At any rate, it's just not true.

For one thing, the public use was a big reason BMO was built. For another, BMO was part of the revitalization plan for the Ex. And lastly, and most relevant to this discussion, BMO was clearly built to support a pro soccer team. That was not some sort of ancillary objective.

Apologies if the tone was perceived as confrontational, I just presented them as facts because that is effectively what they are.

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/02-24/8-CSS0013-Document%201%20Appendix%20C%20-%20BMO%20Toronto%20Report.pdf

re: Reason BMO was built


The construction of this soccer stadium has always been dependent on funding by the various levels of government and the immediate justification for the provision of government funding has been the commitment by FIFA and CSA to hold the FIFA Men’s Under 20 World Youth Championship in the Toronto stadium in 2007 followed by subsequent annual FIFA events.

- Toronto City Council, Policy and Finance Committee (Oct 26,27,28 and 31st) Report 9, Page 5

re: BMO Being Built to Support a Pro Soccer Team?


As discussed above, the construction of the proposed 20,000 seat stadium is currently estimated to require a capital investment of $72.8 million (including base land value). This capital investment is to be funded as shown in Table 1.


In order to support the creation of a venue for the 2007 FIFA Men’s Under-20 World Youth Championship, the Federal and Provincial governments have committed to $35 million in grant funding towards the stadium’s construction cost.


MLSEL has committed to providing a further $8 million of the capital funding in order to create a home venue for a professional Major League Soccer (MLS) team that MLSEL intends to acquire. The project would also result in facility management fees for MLSEL as a result of their proposed management agreement for the facility. MLSEL has also committed to purchasing the naming rights for $10 million. The remainder of the funding is to be raised through contributions from the City/Board of the required land at Exhibition Place and $9.8 million in cash.

- same report, pages 12-13

Note that MLSEL made the commitment to acquiring a MLS franchise to support the project and received management fees as a result of that offer. They didn't acquire a franchise first and seek a place to play. They planned to acquire a franchise to support the project. If the project fell through they weren't on the hook as they didn't have a franchise.

If the project went ahead, MLSEL's investment in the team was low risk considering the cost structures of the league and the return it would generate. By getting a team, they would have a guaranteed share of revenues derived from the stadium. That's what drove the decision.

Re: Projections of 14,000


.. the MLSEL financial model is based on an average attendance at Toronto MLS games of 14,000 per game.


- Toronto City Council, Policy and Inance Committee (Oct 26,27,28 and 31st) Report 9, p 17

[Beach_Red]

That is all true.

The history doesn't matter anyway. We got here however we got here. The point is, if you owned TFC now, what's your biggest risk? imho, it's that your MLS partners are going to screw this thing up for you, sort of like your NHL partners did.

Well, yes, and that's exactly why you want to keep as much control in the league office and not up to each partner - they will screw it up like they did hockey. And it would really only take a couple of bad owners to bring down the whole league.

[ensco]

Pookie, with respect, come on. How can you seriously argue that the above passages you cite prove that the MLSE team was an incidental, minor consideration in the decision to fund the building of BMO? They mention the U 20 thing first, sure, but that's the politics of the thing. The revenues from MLSE was always critical.

[Beach_Red]

Pookie, with respect, come on. How can you seriously argue that the above passages you cite prove that the MLSE team was an incidental, minor consideration in the decision to fund the building of BMO? They mention the U 20 thing first, sure, but that's the politics of the thing. The revenues from MLSE was always critical.

At what point did MLSE get involved and was anyone else interested? The Argo owners (well, ex-Argos now) claim they were lookig into an MLS franchise, but was that it?

[Pookie]

Pookie, with respect, come on. How can you seriously argue that the above passages you cite prove that the MLSE team was an incidental, minor consideration in the decision to fund the building of BMO?

I think it is quite clear if you read the reports and background documents that the decision to acquire a MLS franchise was made to support the stadium bid and not based on the merits of an MLS franchise on its own.

Realistically, we did not have a MLS franchise looking for a place to play. We didn't have a team.

We were proposing a place to play and were looking at a number of things to justify the expense (including CSA events, CNEA events, FIFA, and even the infamous Argos clause). Specifically, we were proposing a place to play so that we could realize the financial impact that the FIFA event was promising:

Deloitte and Touche has estimated that the increased tourism resulting from the staging of this event together with the construction of the stadium will result in a total positive economic impact of $166 million.
(same report)

By promising 16 MLS home dates annually over a 20 year period (avg 14,000 fans) MLSEL was able to acquire the naming rights and a share of the revenues for those same 20 years.

It was a good business deal.

If the deal fell through, would we have a team?


The revenues from MLSE was always critical.

Well, page 16 of that document highlights that MLSEL was projecting annual income to the Board of $1.033M

I'll let you be the judge as to whether $1M vs $166M was "critical" ;)

[ensco]

Without the stadium, there's no TFC. That's obvious.

Without TFC, there would have been no stadium. That's also obvious.

[Pookie]

Without TFC, there would have been no stadium. That's also obvious.

Without MLSEL (or some other private funding) there would have been no FIFA and therefore no need for TFC ;)

[jimmyjazz]

Isn't the issue of Premier League teams begging for sale a bit overly simplistic. If Ashshley buys Newcastle for £134m in 2007 ond tries to sell it in '09 for £400m in 2009, is there a wonder that he cannot sell it?

Jim

[Brooker]

and yet Seattle still wear neon green jerseys.

failures.