What Would You Want to Say to the Teachers Board of Directors?

[ensco]

Here’s what I would say:

Dear OTTP Board of Directors

Maybe you’ll be successful in selling MLSE, in which case we’ll take this up with the next owner. But just in case you retain ownership of MLSE, and through that entity continue to own our team, we wish that you consider the following.

We understand that TFC is a drop in the ocean to MLSE, and that in turn MLSE is a drop in the ocean to OTTP. But having said that, there are enough of us around that you might, just might, want to pay attention, at least a little bit.

We the undersigned are your partners in TFC. There’s not many of us. But you should know that, even though we’re smaller in number than Leafs and Raptors fans, we’re among the best and most loyal fans any sports team could ever want. We were, and remain, grateful to Teachers and MLSE for bringing professional soccer to Toronto. But there is a limit to the gratitude of any partner.

What do we, your partners, want?

Simple. Please care. Please ask a few questions, come to a game, have a look around.

Here’s the questions we think you should ask:

Why is TFC the poorest onfield performing franchise in MLS history?

Does TFC have a looming financial problem? (It’s our feeling that a significant number of season ticket holders are going to reduce their spending on TFC seats and/or drop them altogether.)

Do you derive financial “synergy” by owning this team? (We think you see things through rose coloured glasses. There are obviously shared IT and marketing expenses, but how meaningful are these really? We see anti-synergy. MLSE in earlier years forced some of us to buy full-price tickets to other MLSE-owned team games, if we wanted TFC tickets. MLSE from day one has used TFC as a training ground for executives - not one of the MLSE executives overseeing TFC have any background in soccer whatsoever.)

Why have the executives MLSE has delegated to be in charge of TFC refused to bring in seasoned soccer operations personnel? (With the exception of the 2010 coach, who was fired after approximately 7 months in the job, not one of the team’s current or former coaches or general managers have ever had relevant prior experience in the role they were hired for.)

Why has there has never been accountability in the executive suite for our team’s on field failures.

Please look into the performance issues for yourselves. That’s all we ask.

Signed

[Beach_Red]

That's pretty much all I'd like to ask.

[Shakes McQueen]

Those are questions to be directed at MLSE. OTPP are just investors, and are only concerned with return on their investment.

Quality of the on-field product is strictly the purview of MLSE, and whoever they hire or appoint to concern themselves with it.

Asking these questions of OTTP may be cathartic from a fan perspective, but their only concern is ROI for their retiring clients - which is one of the theories for why they are selling their stake in MLSE in the first place: the need for liquidity, with many boomers retiring soon.

- Scott

[ryan]

I'd just chant...

"ITS ALL YOUR FAULT"

...until they kick me out of the room.

[Shakes McQueen]

All we can really do, is hope the next majority stakeholder in MLSE is a private citizen, and not a conglomerate looking at MLSE as an investment, instead of a hobby - remove the necessity to focus on creating steady and expanding financial returns.

I don't blame OTPP for treating MLSE solely as a financial investment - that is their prerogative, as it should be. The real problem is the structural complications created by having more than one owner, who then have a group of managers in charge of financial management, who then go out and hire more managers to run the day-to-day at the clubs.

- Scott

[ensco]

Those are questions to be directed at MLSE. OTPP are just investors, and are only concerned with return on their investment.

Quality of the on-field product is strictly the purview of MLSE, and whoever they hire or appoint to concern themselves with it.

Asking these questions of OTTP may be cathartic from a fan perspective, but their only concern is ROI for their retiring clients - which is one of the theories for why they are selling their stake in MLSE in the first place: the need for liquidity, with many boomers retiring soon.

- Scott

This isn't about "catharsis".

OTTP appear to me to have totally abdicated their fiduciary duty with respect to their MLSE investment.

This is a control investment in MLSE by Teachers, not a few thousand shares of Apple or CN that they own. There is a much higher oversight/governance threshold.

OTTP control who runs MLSE, they control the Board of Directors of MLSE, and, if I were in that pension plan, I would expect OTTP to actively manage MLSE. That includes being knowledgeable about, and weighing in on as necessary, personnel decisions, operations.....everything.

[Roogsy]

One statement:

Get on with it.

Whatever their plan for MLSE, just get it done already.

[Shakes McQueen]

This isn't about "catharsis".

OTTP appear to me to have totally abdicated their fiduciary duty with respect to their MLSE investment.

This is a control investment in MLSE by Teachers, not a few thousand shares of Apple or CN that they own. There is a much higher oversight/governance threshold.

OTTP control who runs MLSE, they control the Board of Directors of MLSE, and, if I were in that pension plan, I would expect OTTP to actively manage MLSE. That includes being knowledgeable about, and weighing in on as necessary, personnel decisions, operations.....everything.

But OTPP's only interest in MLSE, is making sure MLSE delivers them a steady financial return on their ownership stake. MLSE exists to manage everything else, and essentially fulfill the traditional duties a team "owner" would have.

A pension fund isn't interested or equipped to weigh in on personnal decisions, or the day to day operations of a soccer team. MLSE exists to represent them at that table.

This is the fundamental structural problem. We have multiple owners, and then multiple managers appointed who are then supposed to try and both represent the interests of those owners, and the traditional interests of a private owner - like building winning teams.

- Scott

[Shakes McQueen]

One statement:

Get on with it.

Whatever their plan for MLSE, just get it done already.

I'm sure they'd like to, but selling a conglomerate as massive as MLSE probably isn't a simple process. I can only imagine.

- Scott

[Beach_Red]

But OTPP's only interest in MLSE, is making sure MLSE delivers them a steady financial return on their ownership stake. MLSE exists to manage everything else, and essentially fulfill the traditional duties a team "owner" would have.

A pension fund isn't interested or equipped to weigh in on personnal decisions, or the day to day operations of a soccer team. MLSE exists to represent them at that table.

This is the fundamental structural problem. We have multiple owners, and then multiple managers appointed who are then supposed to try and both represent the interests of those owners, and the traditional interests of a private owner - like building winning teams.

- Scott


Yes, it's a fundemental problem with the structure, but just this part:

"Why have the executives MLSE has delegated to be in charge of TFC refused to bring in seasoned soccer operations personnel? (With the exception of the 2010 coach, who was fired after approximately 7 months in the job, not one of the team’s current or former coaches or general managers have ever had relevant prior experience in the role they were hired for.)"

Should be of concern. Of course, you're right, if OTTP had shareholders instead of members they'd be all over this kind of thing.

But to turn MLSE around may not take a single individual owner. I've had personal experience with CTV lately, and since the OTTP sold to Bell the changes have been swift and for the better - lots of execs fired (the CEO quit, five senior execs fired, and more at the next level down). I wouldn't have thought a company like Bell could move so fast, but you never know, if they buy MLSE they may make some very big changes very quickly.

[Pookie]

The counter argument to the "seasoned personnel" argument is that they did that recently with Klinsmann.

I personally think that the "looming financial crisis" is the argument that has the most legs and posts the strongest opportunity to motivate change.

I'm not sure that the few million TFC will lose will concern the OTPP but it should concern the league itself and to a lesser extent the city of Toronto. Revenue sharing is a fundamental lifeline to this league and the mismanagement of this "model" franchise directly impacts the league's bottom line.

Fewer fans means fewer $ for the city in their management deal with MLSE.

You can only hope that backroom political maneuvering has begun

[brad]

The counter argument to the "seasoned personnel" argument is that they did that recently with Klinsmann.


He's not seasoned in the job the hired him for. He has no track record of delivering in that role.

[ensco]

But OTPP's only interest in MLSE, is making sure MLSE delivers them a steady financial return on their ownership stake. MLSE exists to manage everything else, and essentially fulfill the traditional duties a team "owner" would have.


Not so. As a matter of law, OTTP delegate management of MLSE to certain individuals at MLSE, but the Board of MLSE (which Teachers control) still manage those individuals (the Board members have fiduciary duties, and liability under the law, to do so).

This note could just as easily be addressed to the MLSE Board, but really, they're not the root cause. It's the people who appoint the majority of the MLSE Directors, Teachers, who ultimately matter.

I am asking whether Teachers have carried out their duties sufficiently. If you think so, then I disagree, I think there's considerable evidence to the contrary, but it's a free country.

[Pookie]

He's not seasoned in the job the hired him for. He has no track record of delivering in that role.

LA turned out ok

[Shakes McQueen]

Not so. As a matter of law, OTTP delegate management of MLSE to certain individuals at MLSE, but the Board of MLSE (which Teachers control) still manage those individuals (the Board members have fiduciary duties, and liability under the law, to do so).

I understand that. It doesn't contradict what I said - I said MLSE function effectively in the day-to-day traditional "owner" role: hiring GM's, evaluating team performance, and so on. MLSE exist as the practical face of OTPP.


I am asking whether Teachers have carried out their duties sufficiently. If you think so, then I disagree, I think there's considerable evidence to the contrary, but it's a free country.

Their duty is to make money to pay the pensions of their members. They don't own the majority stake in MLSE for any other reason than to collect the return on their investment. As long as that keeps rolling in, they are happy - as soon as it isn't, you would logically either see upheaval of the MLSE board, or OTPP sell their stake to look elsewhere.

OTPP as an entity isn't particularly interested in how good MLSE's sports properties are. It's MLSE's role to try and balance the desire of ownership - financial growth - and the desire of their consumer base - on-field success.

- Scott

[TFCRegina]

Nothing i can post here and not get in trouble for. :)

[DichioTFC]

wont work ensco..

1. TFC isn't a "drop in the ocean," by saying so you're undermining the quality of their investment, and since you later claim to be a partner, renders that argument baseless as well.

2. Brand loyalty often sees high rates of customer turnover. This can be overcome by acquiring new customers, or, in our case, replacing high-maintenance customers (us) in exchange for low-maintenance customers (soccer moms / nuclear families). They're already in the process of this.

3. We're not 'partners,' we're customers. Huge difference. The sole purpose we serve to the OTTP is to be a revenue stream. Partners implies we're providing some tangible value on top of that, and, by the looks of the 'problems' we cause the FO, it could be argued that we don't. I'm not sure if we offer much marketing value any more beyond stock footage of games gone by - and even that can be overcome with an effective TV ad campaign.

4. On-field performance is often not a goal for sports conglomerates. Providing entertainment value for a family of four where the parent parks the car; kids buy hot dogs, a shirt and cotton candy is often the main goals. The residual income from concessions and parking is more important than on-field success. And let's face facts, when's the last time a supporter purchased popcorn or a chip butty from the concessions, or parked anywhere other than Lamport?

5. I think its obvious to everyone that there are clear financial synergies to owning TFC and MLSE. ST waiting list suckers got the 'opportunity' to buy Marlies tickets. Corporate sponsors to TFC get Maple Leafs season ticket / luxury box opportunities. Charitable donations to the MLSE foundation give corporations an opportunity to raise some goodwill with many segments with high levels of disposable income (let's say, for example, the urban male 25-34 market). How can you not see the financial synergies? Plus this industry has the highest potential profits and is among the safest (Jays, Raptors, Leafs, TFC, Argos are not going anywhere; there is high demand for sports within the GTA).

6. Changing the operational structure would be of interest to them, but an aside about the 7-month tenure of a middle manager will not interest these millionaire board members. This would be delegated down to Anselmi to fix, since he's in charge of lower-middle management.

7. Why has there has never been accountability in the executive suite for our team’s on field failures. There is accountability - the TFC FO are accountable to Anselmi, who is, in turn, accountable to the Peddie and the board at large. From the viewpoint of board members, Anselmi recently made changes to address the issues of previous on-field failures. Board members have a lot more patience than consumers, and would probably expect patience from our end (remember - MoJo had a 5 year plan, Winter / Mariner have only had a couple months of soccer to play in).

---------

I wouldn't say a single thing to the OTTP. Instead, I would enlist the help of influential fans that have corporation and political clout to lobby the board. Mayor Miller is the obvious choice, but I've met *a lot* of rich and powerful people at BMO who have great connections in their 9-5 lines of work.

The board members are clearly not fans of the team. They are more concerned with revenue generation strategies and profit maximization than they are if we make the CCL. Showing them how on-field success translates to playoff revenue (tickets, concessions, parking, jerseys) and greater ad revenue (greater successes lead to broadcasts on ESPN, which mean greater visibility for TFC / BMO Field advertisers) would be better than whining about how we're not winning. Show the board how winning will benefit them. RPB is 500 members approx. We're 2.3% of the stadium attendance week in and week out. And since majority of RPBs are in the cheaper supporters sections (and we don't purchase concessions - ignoring beer for the moment), TFC generates less revenue from us than they do other segments, say the nuclear family example above. Also, I would venture a guess to say that the SGs collective cause 80-90% of the problems for the FO (imagine Anselmi trying to explain to the board why the supporter groups were boycotting an opportunity to watch Real Madrid in person).

TL;DR - Discussing the economics of winning, good. Asking OTTP to vaguely look at the product first hand themselves, bad.

[TFCRegina]

wont work ensco..

1. TFC isn't a "drop in the ocean," by saying so you're undermining the quality of their investment, and since you later claim to be a partner, renders that argument baseless as well.

2. Brand loyalty often sees high rates of customer turnover. This can be overcome by acquiring new customers, or, in our case, replacing high-maintenance customers (us) in exchange for low-maintenance customers (soccer moms / nuclear families). They're already in the process of this.

3. We're not 'partners,' we're customers. Huge difference. The sole purpose we serve to the OTTP is to be a revenue stream. Partners implies we're providing some tangible value on top of that, and, by the looks of the 'problems' we cause the FO, it could be argued that we don't. I'm not sure if we offer much marketing value any more beyond stock footage of games gone by - and even that can be overcome with an effective TV ad campaign.

4. On-field performance is often not a goal for sports conglomerates. Providing entertainment value for a family of four where the parent parks the car; kids buy hot dogs, a shirt and cotton candy is often the main goals. The residual income from concessions and parking is more important than on-field success. And let's face facts, when's the last time a supporter purchased popcorn or a chip butty from the concessions, or parked anywhere other than Lamport?

5. I think its obvious to everyone that there are clear financial synergies to owning TFC and MLSE. ST waiting list suckers got the 'opportunity' to buy Marlies tickets. Corporate sponsors to TFC get Maple Leafs season ticket / luxury box opportunities. Charitable donations to the MLSE foundation give corporations an opportunity to raise some goodwill with many segments with high levels of disposable income (let's say, for example, the urban male 25-34 market). How can you not see the financial synergies? Plus this industry has the highest potential profits and is among the safest (Jays, Raptors, Leafs, TFC, Argos are not going anywhere; there is high demand for sports within the GTA).

6. Changing the operational structure would be of interest to them, but an aside about the 7-month tenure of a middle manager will not interest these millionaire board members. This would be delegated down to Anselmi to fix, since he's in charge of lower-middle management.

7. Why has there has never been accountability in the executive suite for our team’s on field failures. There is accountability - the TFC FO are accountable to Anselmi, who is, in turn, accountable to the Peddie and the board at large. From the viewpoint of board members, Anselmi recently made changes to address the issues of previous on-field failures. Board members have a lot more patience than consumers, and would probably expect patience from our end (remember - MoJo had a 5 year plan, Winter / Mariner have only had a couple months of soccer to play in).

---------

I wouldn't say a single thing to the OTTP. Instead, I would enlist the help of influential fans that have corporation and political clout to lobby the board. Mayor Miller is the obvious choice, but I've met *a lot* of rich and powerful people at BMO who have great connections in their 9-5 lines of work.

The board members are clearly not fans of the team. They are more concerned with revenue generation strategies and profit maximization than they are if we make the CCL. Showing them how on-field success translates to playoff revenue (tickets, concessions, parking, jerseys) and greater ad revenue (greater successes lead to broadcasts on ESPN, which mean greater visibility for TFC / BMO Field advertisers) would be better than whining about how we're not winning. Show the board how winning will benefit them. RPB is 500 members approx. We're 2.3% of the stadium attendance week in and week out. And since majority of RPBs are in the cheaper supporters sections (and we don't purchase concessions - ignoring beer for the moment), TFC generates less revenue from us than they do other segments, say the nuclear family example above. Also, I would venture a guess to say that the SGs collective cause 80-90% of the problems for the FO (imagine Anselmi trying to explain to the board why the supporter groups were boycotting an opportunity to watch Real Madrid in person).

TL;DR - Discussing the economics of winning, good. Asking OTTP to vaguely look at the product first hand themselves, bad.

Here's some economics for you.

Supply: Shitload of empty seats.
Demand: None

Result: we have more seats supplied than demanded

Prices must fall so that quantity demanded increases.

Result: Profit falls for shitty ownership group.

Does anyone think TFC sells 14,000 seats if they force out the supporters groups?

I sure as shit don't.

[DichioTFC]

Leafs and Raptors are profitable without supporter groups. Soccer fans are accustomed to supporter groups, North American sports fans generally are not - even if SGs were banned at BMO, I don't think the other 20K season ticket holders would leave en masse. I get the supply and demand curve, but the basis for the drop in 'supply' is groundless IMO and easily replaceable (turn the south end into a kid-friendly family fun section with mid-game distractions - t-shirt giveaways, etc. - and you have a winning formula)

[TFCRegina]

Leafs and Raptors are profitable without supporter groups. Soccer fans are accustomed to supporter groups, North American sports fans generally are not - even if SGs were banned at BMO, I don't think the other 20K season ticket holders would leave en masse. I get the supply and demand curve, but the basis for the drop in 'supply' is groundless IMO and easily replaceable (turn the south end into a kid-friendly family fun section with mid-game distractions - t-shirt giveaways, etc. - and you have a winning formula)

That's where you and I disagree. Soccer is not marketable in North America as a mainstream sport on its own. You need the supporters groups or it fails.

[DichioTFC]

I see where you're coming from, but I still think the casual sports fan market base in Toronto itself can sustain a club without 'supporters.'

Either way, the original point was to lobby OTTP with political / corporate 'experts,' basing our arguments mainly around the financial benefits of playoffs.

[TFCRegina]

I see where you're coming from, but I still think the casual sports fan market base in Toronto itself can sustain a club without 'supporters.'

Either way, the original point was to lobby OTTP with political / corporate 'experts,' basing our arguments mainly around the financial benefits of playoffs.

Ok, so where are they at the games? Because quite frankly, they are becoming scarce. There's a lot of empty seats at the matches.

[DichioTFC]

I don't think they're scarce at all. Just look at all the 'fans' who are taking pictures of the stadium / skyline / Gardiner, and the fans who talk throughout the game. I'm in 225 half the time, I see dozens if not hundreds of new fans all the time - and just as many returning fans who explain what little they know to the new fans that they brought.

[ensco]

I've been in the west side upper deck for all 5 years, and what I see is acres of empty seats, where there used to be none.

[ensco]

5. I think its obvious to everyone that there are clear financial synergies to owning TFC and MLSE. ST waiting list suckers got the 'opportunity' to buy Marlies tickets. Corporate sponsors to TFC get Maple Leafs season ticket / luxury box opportunities....Charitable donations to the MLSE foundation give corporations an opportunity to raise some goodwill with many segments

How can you not see the financial synergies?

I think what you say with respect to synergies is widely believed.

I believe the mystical presence of "synergies" to be one of this biggest fallacies in all of business. "Synergies" are used to justify more management BS than anything else in corporate life. When you hear any CEO mention that word, you should immediately go on high alert.

What is "synergy"? It's an economic benefit that flows from owning something you cannot rent. MLSE would provide the following list for sure - reduced team admin costs (executive mgmt, HR, IT, security), concessions, ticketing, cross-marketing and the donation stuff you mention.

Now let's imagine for a second that TFC were owned by somebody else, not MLSE. That hypothetical owner would decide whether to either hire people, or outsource, all these functions. Guess what? There are a dozen companies out there that would provide IT, concessions and security for them. The Blue Jays would love to do TFC's ticketing for them - I bet they'd offer it at a reasonable cost.

So what's left? The cross-marketing and donation stuff you mentioned, and the biggie - sole and exclusive access to their executive managerial team. I stand by my original statement. These are all anti-synergies.

I guarantee you that MLSE have endless pretty powerpoints proving how they do all these functions cheaper and better than the outsourcing alternatives. They know this is the ultimate justification of their existence. I would be highly sceptical about these analyses, without even needing to be especially sceptical about MLSE per se. I have learned that most of these "analyses" fall apart when you scrutinize them closely. It's the world we live in.

This is obviously way bigger than MLSE/TFC, but I've spent 25 years doing deals, and the abuse of the word synergy is just about the biggest single driver of corporate failure that I have seen.

ps There is one real synergy, which probably nobody at TFC or MLSE would mention publicly! Which is TFC's access to MLSE muscle in securing public land deals. This is no small thing, and TFC benefits hugely from it. Problem is, it's an asset useful only in the real estate side of the business, not operations.

[Glenchen29]

Dear Board, we have a five year plan for TFC. Lets talk about the Leafs now!

[prizby]

i'd tell them they are doing a great job and they should think about running FIFA :o

[TFCRegina]

i'd tell them they are doing a great job and they should think about running FIFA :o

Then nobody would win at all.

[Waggy]

Dear MLSE

I am well aware Maple Leaf Sports Entertainment is a private entity. However it's holdings are public entities. Even if Ontario Hydro is privately owned it is still responsible to the citizens of Ontario and responsible to act in the best interests of it's customers not necessarily itself. The Toronto Maple Leafs, Toronto Raptors and Toronto FC are not simply businesses. They are entities that hold the hopes and dreams of almost every citizen of the city of Toronto and countless others around the world. You have a fiduciary duty to ensure that the properties that you are holding in the short term are up to the standards of those people.

People care deeply about sports in this country and in this city, and you have continously acted callously to profit as much as possible off their emotions. You act as if the people of this city should be grateful that you are providing us with the opportunity to watch sports. This attitude is completely and utterly unacceptable. we watched sports before MLSE and we will watch sports after MLSE. The Toronto Maple Leafs, Toronto Raptors and Toronto FC may technically be owned by you but they belong to the city of Toronto. We trusted you to run those franchises in our best interests, not yours. You have failed this trust. As a result you are no longer morally able to continue in your role as acting owner of these sports properties. Please vacate your post within 60 days. I'd like to say good luck in your future endevours but you and I both know I wouldn't mean it.

Sincerely
Waggy

PS: Since you clearly don't know or understand what fiduciary duty is, here is a definition for you

A fiduciary duty (from Latin (http://redpatchboys.ca/wiki/Latin_language) fiduciarius, meaning "(holding) in trust"; from fides, meaning "faith", and fiducia, meaning "trust") is a legal (http://redpatchboys.ca/wiki/Law) or ethical relationship of confidence or trust (http://redpatchboys.ca/wiki/Trust_(social_sciences)) regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties (http://redpatchboys.ca/wiki/Party), most commonly a fiduciary and a principal. One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, holds a fiduciary relation or acts in a fiduciary capacity to another, such as one whose funds are entrusted to it for investment. In a fiduciary relation one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably reposes confidence, good faith (http://redpatchboys.ca/wiki/Good_faith), reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires one to act at all times for the sole benefit (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benefit) and interests of another, with loyalty to those interests.

[Pookie]

^ anyone ever thought about taking up a conversation with the League itself?

They are the owners after all. MLSE is a shareholder in the league and is effectively an owner-operator.

Revenue is going to drop. This cash cow is being mismanaged. As revenue drops, so too does the revenue sharing for the other shareholders/franchises. It is in MLS' interest to ensure a stable, healthy franchise. They are the ultimate owners.

Time for a little corrective action, no?

[Waggy]

^ anyone ever thought about taking up a conversation with the League itself?

They are the owners after all. MLSE is a shareholder in the league and is effectively an owner-operator.

Revenue is going to drop. This cash cow is being mismanaged. As revenue drops, so too does the revenue sharing for the other shareholders/franchises. It is in MLS' interest to ensure a stable, healthy franchise. They are the ultimate owners.

Time for a little corrective action, no?

That's a really good idea. A petition with a few 1000 signatures of TFC season ticket holders, plus hundreds or thousands of other supporters, would have a lot of weight with MLS... I can't imagine a single TFC fan who wouldn't sign


Edit: or even something as simple as a facebook group if we could get enough people on it. Something like "Concerned Supporters", and outline how we're worried about the long term viability of the franchise unless a new ownership group comes in almost immediately. That the current one is doing potentially irrepairable harm to the fan base and the franchise. And point out that Toronto FCs success sparked the league, it's failure could spark something much worse.

Edit 2: The more I think about it the more I like this idea. Remember it was MLS who forced MLSE into the townhalls and various efforts to reach out to fans last year. Going to them for help is the obvious thing. And I feel like we'd have a lot of support around the league, especially from some of the SG's we're on good terms with.

[Beach_Red]

^ anyone ever thought about taking up a conversation with the League itself?

They are the owners after all. MLSE is a shareholder in the league and is effectively an owner-operator.

Revenue is going to drop. This cash cow is being mismanaged. As revenue drops, so too does the revenue sharing for the other shareholders/franchises. It is in MLS' interest to ensure a stable, healthy franchise. They are the ultimate owners.

Time for a little corrective action, no?

Certainly the league must be disappointed in what they had been led to believe was one of the premiere sports ownership groups in north America. It may have started before the Cup game (probably some heads turned in the MLS offices when they recommended Mo as coach and MLSE handed him the entire
team to build and didn't hire a proper exec, feeling they could do it themselves) but who knows? The only other people who were apparently interested in a Toronto MLS team were the Argos' owners. Would they have been any better?

But maybe MLS could actually help with that big signing we all hope is coming, that "leader" who will be willing to give up his position wherever he is now and come here to lead this team by himself. Who knows, maybe MLSE will be able to make the signing on their own, but nothing in the history of this team gives us much hope, does it?

[ensco]

^ anyone ever thought about taking up a conversation with the League itself?

They are the owners after all. MLSE is a shareholder in the league and is effectively an owner-operator.

Revenue is going to drop. This cash cow is being mismanaged. As revenue drops, so too does the revenue sharing for the other shareholders/franchises. It is in MLS' interest to ensure a stable, healthy franchise. They are the ultimate owners.

Time for a little corrective action, no?

It's a great idea. Not sure how to get them to admit they are disappointed in MLSE though (although you know it has to be true)

[sashavukelich]

i think MLS should be involved, because our ownership group is seriously underperforming and making MLS look amateur (when they've tried so hard to prove otherwise).

Whilst i do think winter/Mariner will get it right, they need the shackles off and they need to be able to do what they want to do.

[DichioTFC]

I think what you say with respect to synergies is widely believed.

I believe the mystical presence of "synergies" to be one of this biggest fallacies in all of business. "Synergies" are used to justify more management BS than anything else in corporate life. When you hear any CEO mention that word, you should immediately go on high alert.

What is "synergy"? It's an economic benefit that flows from owning something you cannot rent. MLSE would provide the following list for sure - reduced team admin costs (executive mgmt, HR, IT, security), concessions, ticketing, cross-marketing and the donation stuff you mention.

Now let's imagine for a second that TFC were owned by somebody else, not MLSE. That hypothetical owner would decide whether to either hire people, or outsource, all these functions. Guess what? There are a dozen companies out there that would provide IT, concessions and security for them. The Blue Jays would love to do TFC's ticketing for them - I bet they'd offer it at a reasonable cost.

So what's left? The cross-marketing and donation stuff you mentioned, and the biggie - sole and exclusive access to their executive managerial team. I stand by my original statement. These are all anti-synergies.

I guarantee you that MLSE have endless pretty powerpoints proving how they do all these functions cheaper and better than the outsourcing alternatives. They know this is the ultimate justification of their existence. I would be highly sceptical about these analyses, without even needing to be especially sceptical about MLSE per se. I have learned that most of these "analyses" fall apart when you scrutinize them closely. It's the world we live in.

This is obviously way bigger than MLSE/TFC, but I've spent 25 years doing deals, and the abuse of the word synergy is just about the biggest single driver of corporate failure that I have seen.

ps There is one real synergy, which probably nobody at TFC or MLSE would mention publicly! Which is TFC's access to MLSE muscle in securing public land deals. This is no small thing, and TFC benefits hugely from it. Problem is, it's an asset useful only in the real estate side of the business, not operations.

Very true, the value of acquiring government-held land both on the lake shore and Downsview and developing it for MLSE purposes in the name of TFC has been a great asset to the OTTP.

The problem that I find communicating our issues to the OTTP is that MLSE is actually very successful at its intended purpose - making money for its owners. I don't know if we could get the OTTP to see / understand / care about our point of view with regards to wins and losses. Another option is to convince OTTP to sell TFC to new ownership; convince them that this revenue stream is not worth their trouble, to sell the product / brand at its highest value so that they can invest more resources into the Leafs and real estate. We can even propose to lease the academy / training fields from them, to sweeten the deal.

The value of TFC is probably $60M right now, ~20% mark-up would make the selling price say $75M (conservatively). Finding someone that would willing to make that kind of investment in the club would be another topic for another day (or finding 75,000 fans willing to invest $1,000 in owning the team - *that* would be interesting for sure)

[Shakes McQueen]

Here is what I would say to the OTPP, if I had the chance:

"Hey, can I have some money?"

- Scott