PDA

View Full Version : Should MLS step in and buy TFC?



TFC07
05-06-2012, 10:17 AM
Should MLS buy TFC and operate it until they find a suitable owner? It will be similar to New Orleans Hornets situation in NBA where the league owns the team and then sells it later on.

It's obvious MLSE aren't capable of running a soccer team especially MLSE are too busy focusing their other sports teams.

ManUtd4ever
05-06-2012, 10:20 AM
Interesting suggestion, but I don't think it's feasible with the sale of MLSE about to transpire.

Fort York Redcoat
05-06-2012, 10:23 AM
I assume we're ignoring the likelihood of this actually happening and voting on our peference? Would you be confident in what the league would do for the team in decades to come? It would take that long to find an new owner. MLS does not want to own any more teams. It's a step backward for them.

ensco
05-06-2012, 10:24 AM
Depending on what happens with the sale, this is a protest movement I could potentially seriously get behind. Revoke the franchise, and put it back on the market. No idea what the legalities are.

TFC07
05-06-2012, 10:26 AM
I assume we're ignoring the likelihood of this actually happening and voting on our peference? Would you be confident in what the league would do for the team in decades to come? It would take that long to find an new owner. MLS does not want to own any more teams. It's a step backward for them.

It can happen. North American leagues in past have own teams and then sold them later on. I don't think it will be hard to find an owner for a Toronto soccer team. Toronto market is one of bigger soccer markets in the league and putting a winning Toronto soccer team will bank in a lot of money for league (MLS is revenue sharing league).

Beach_Red
05-06-2012, 10:27 AM
Depending on what happens with the sale, this is a protest movement I could potentially seriously get behind. Revoke the franchise, and put it back on the market. No idea what the legalities are.

If it works, let's get the NHL to take over the Leafs, it seems to working with Phoenix. ;)

[NBF]
05-06-2012, 10:31 AM
I assume we're ignoring the likelihood of this actually happening and voting on our peference? Would you be confident in what the league would do for the team in decades to come? It would take that long to find an new owner. MLS does not want to own any more teams. It's a step backward for them. MLS would rather not own a team in the league unless it has to because of financial difficulties. I take it that the money from such change in ownership would come from the other MLS teams which would make the league financially weaker. If the economics in the USA were better or steady, if MLS were to takeover the TFC Franchise, they would have no quelms over moving the team to Miami or somewhere economically feaseable, they would say that even though the team has a fan base in Toronto, the overall goal of the league is to build the sport in America. At the moment though I think MLS is happy to be gauging the Canadian public regardless of whether the team is American.

Fort York Redcoat
05-06-2012, 10:37 AM
;1485170']MLS would rather not own a team in the league unless it has to because of financial difficulties. I take it that the money from such change in ownership would come from the other MLS teams which would make the league financially weaker. If the economics in the USA were better or steady, if MLS were to takeover the TFC Franchise, they would have no quelms over moving the team to Miami or somewhere economically feaseable, they would say that even though the team has a fan base in Toronto, the overall goal of the league is to build the sport in America. At the moment though I think MLS is happy to be gauging the Canadian public regardless of whether the team is American.

Precisely. The club is making money for the rest of the league. Why buy it and move it when it could pay for an expansion or another teams move to a possibly more succesful market?

ManUtd4ever
05-06-2012, 10:38 AM
Depending on what happens with the sale, this is a protest movement I could potentially seriously get behind. Revoke the franchise, and put it back on the market. No idea what the legalities are.

I can get behind the concept as well, but I want to give Bell/Rogers a kick at the can first. I believe the new ownership group will have a vested interest in putting a winning product on the pitch.

ManUtd4ever
05-06-2012, 10:38 AM
If it works, let's get the NHL to take over the Leafs, it seems to working with Phoenix. ;)

True enough.

Fort York Redcoat
05-06-2012, 10:39 AM
It can happen. North American leagues in past have own teams and then sold them later on. I don't think it will be hard to find an owner for a Toronto soccer team. Toronto market is one of bigger soccer markets in the league and putting a winning Toronto soccer team will bank in a lot of money for league (MLS is revenue sharing league).

Who? What possible owner(s) do you speak of? We are currently witnessing more mergers to further stabilize ownership.

TFC07
05-06-2012, 10:43 AM
Who? What possible owner(s) do you speak of? We are currently witnessing more mergers to further stabilize ownership.

I don't have names, but put up "sale" sign on TFC then we will see who interested to buy TFC. I think there are investors out there are willing to invest in MLS where they see a huge upside of making money if soccer keeps on growing in Canada/USA.

Roogsy
05-06-2012, 10:52 AM
They never have before, and they won't now. This is a non-starter of an issue.

Fort York Redcoat
05-06-2012, 10:52 AM
I don't have names, but put up "sale" sign on TFC then we will see who interested to buy TFC. I think there are investors out there are willing to invest in MLS where they see a huge upside of making money if soccer keeps on growing in Canada/USA.

That is far more likely to see the team moving to Florida as said above than seeing some as yet to be discovered owner that looks more attractive than Bell and Rogers to the league.

Flipityflu
05-06-2012, 10:53 AM
so much bitterness with so little direction.

TFC07
05-06-2012, 11:08 AM
That is far more likely to see the team moving to Florida as said above than seeing some as yet to be discovered owner that looks more attractive than Bell and Rogers to the league.

I know Eugene Melnyk at one point was interested of bringing a MLS team in Ottawa. Maybe if TFC was for sale, he might be interested of owning TFC. lol

Alonso
05-06-2012, 12:07 PM
Depending on what happens with the sale, this is a protest movement I could potentially seriously get behind. Revoke the franchise, and put it back on the market. No idea what the legalities are.


Agreed completely. This would be something I would get behind absolutely.

Alonso
05-06-2012, 12:09 PM
Well according to this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_net_worth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadians_by_net_worth)

There are 19 straight up billionaires living in this city and 28 in total in the province. Couldn't one of them spare us from our anguish?



I wish I had a billion dollars.


Something I posted in the Friday news section... dreamers unite!

Cashcleaner
05-06-2012, 12:39 PM
Does Toronto FC still make money? Because that's all the league cares about.

If anyone doesn't believe that or think there's more to it than simple ecomonics, I do have a brand new bridge in New York you might be interested in purchasing...

Chris Wren
05-06-2012, 01:13 PM
This is just never going to happen. The only reason the NBA or NHL took over a team was because those teams were on the verge of financial collapse.

RedDevils
05-06-2012, 01:21 PM
We need a competent president of the club that knows the American system (so preferably American). The owners are incompetent but you can't deny they spend the money. Really hope Rogers/Bell do the same.

Code Red
05-06-2012, 01:36 PM
While we're discussing this topic, why don't we start taking bets where the team would end up if MLS was to own the team b/c there's no question that a futile team is always at risk of being relocated especially one that is owned by the league. I know our current management group is incompetent but being owned by the league, even on an interim basis is a terrible idea.

ArmenJBX
05-06-2012, 01:43 PM
They won't relocate Toronto FC.
You relocate if the market can't sustain the team, not if the ownership cannot.

Maybe David Beckham can purchase Toronto FC.

ensco
05-06-2012, 01:54 PM
This is just never going to happen. The only reason the NBA or NHL took over a team was because those teams were on the verge of financial collapse.

I agree. But it's genius as a protest movement against Anselmi et al, if that group aren't immediately replaced by the new owners.

Code Red
05-06-2012, 02:13 PM
They won't relocate Toronto FC.
You relocate if the market can't sustain the team, not if the ownership cannot.

Maybe David Beckham can purchase Toronto FC.

I know they wouldn't contemplate a move in the immediate future but long-term, you never know, especially if TFC was to continue on this path and attendance figures were to drop significantly. Then they may consider.

All I'm saying is that we need to get this mess sorted out without the help of the league. As it's been pointed out before, Toronto FC is like a step child to the MLSE enterprise. Until that changes, we'll never taste success.

prizby
05-06-2012, 02:31 PM
Answer this:

MLS owned TFC, TFC would have _ DPs?
MLS owned TFC, TFC would have __ million invested in its academy and training centre?


It can happen. North American leagues in past have own teams and then sold them later on. I don't think it will be hard to find an owner for a Toronto soccer team. Toronto market is one of bigger soccer markets in the league and putting a winning Toronto soccer team will bank in a lot of money for league (MLS is revenue sharing league).

it would be interesting to know what we are sharing with the league...what % of the different avenues of income

bones
05-06-2012, 04:07 PM
They won't relocate Toronto FC.
You relocate if the market can't sustain the team, not if the ownership cannot.

Maybe David Beckham can purchase Toronto FC.

They won't relocate or let anything happen to the team because Belgers needs content for all their media outlets. That's the only reason why they bought ML$E. As an investment the $'s are pretty tapped out profit wise. They make a lot period but there's not much "up" from where they are. No other investor would buy ML$E in hopes to improve significantly the profits. It's all about buying something, anything profitable that also fills up all their media channels.

Ajax TFC
05-06-2012, 04:15 PM
I'm pretty sure MLS couldn't buy TFC even if they wanted to. It's not just the team, they'd have to buy the assets as well such as the academy and it's 17 million facility

spe18
05-06-2012, 04:20 PM
As I understand it, the league owns all the teams, MLSE simply operates the team? No?

"MLS operates under a single-entity structure, where each team is owned by the league and operated by its investors"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer

ryan
05-06-2012, 09:04 PM
I think I could suffer a couple years under MLS ownership until they found ownership who wasn't a pile of corporate shit.

It'll get us on track better than hoping MLSE is going to sort themselves out.

JamboAl
05-06-2012, 09:13 PM
I usually don't respond to these kind of threads but without being disrespectful, this is like the Quebec students who want free university tuition. The chance of this is less than zero. And it's also a very slippery slope, like nationalizing a business.

nfitz
05-06-2012, 09:37 PM
Is this a joke? TFC is one of the most profitable franchises in the league. And at the same time, the current owner has thrown a lot more money at long-term development of facilities and the training grounds, than you see in most cities.

Just because they've lost a few game they shouldn't have, is no reason to start being absurd.

Oldtimer
05-06-2012, 09:47 PM
think this thread is yet another grasping at straws... and who can blame people for wanting to!

...given that MLS recommended Mo Johnston to TFC, there is no guarantee that they would turn TFC into a winner.

Now if MLS allowed TFC an unlimited salary budget, maybe even ML$E could have a winner... :D

Canary10
05-07-2012, 09:45 AM
Instead of taking over the franchise, why not just introduce relegation?

Whoop
05-07-2012, 09:47 AM
At this stage, is TFC even turning a profit and making money for MLS?

I'd be interested to see.

Detroit_TFC
05-07-2012, 10:49 AM
A plausible scenario could involve our new corporate overlords Bell & Rogers deciding that running a sawker team isn't core for them. That's a marketing decision. If you think that there's an economic decision to be made (ie TFC loses too much money, lets get rid of it), we are a long LONG way from that. Remember being the MLS owners club gives them a piece of Soccer United Marketing, which is a cash cow (for you non-finance people, that's a good thing). Butts in seats may not be that relevant to them, now or ever.

ManUtd4ever
05-07-2012, 10:49 AM
At this stage, is TFC even turning a profit and making money for MLS?

I'd be interested to see.

I would assume so, but only because of the financial commitment from STH's this season. Considering that there are already thousands of empty seats at BMO Field in recent weeks that have been paid for, it's very likely that the proverbial gravy train will come to an abrubt end next season.

jabbronies
05-07-2012, 10:52 AM
Horrible idea. The MLS is not run by soccer people. We would have so many restrictions as fans put on us. It would be a bad scenario.
Aside from that - the stadium experience would be even worse. Think Columbus stadium experience and times that by 100.

rocker
05-07-2012, 10:56 AM
There are teams in far worse financial positions for MLS than TFC. This is a non-issue at this time. It's a socialist league -- as long as it has some great successes (Seattle, Portland, etc) it can keep other teams alive (See San Jose and Columbus).

Remember that the original plan of the team was predicated on far lower expectations in terms of attendance and ticket prices than we have now. And in a revenue sharing league that's stable, like MLS is now, they can handle the downs of a team's fortunes, particularly a team that was the highlight of the league's balance sheet just a few years before.

I think MLS is probably just disappointed that the team has failed on the field -- if it was a good team, they'd be making even more dough.

Anyhow, new owners are coming shortly... Bell/Rogers. No more jokes about the Teachers Pension Fund. lol.

I'm going to assume Bell/Rogers would sue the pants off MLS if MLS took the franchise rights... and anyways, Tenanbaum still owns a percentage, and based on what Garber and the rest say, they love the guy.

ryan
05-07-2012, 12:05 PM
Horrible idea. The MLS is not run by soccer people.

So it's a lateral move you say..

jabbronies
05-07-2012, 12:30 PM
So it's a lateral move you say..

I would even say a step backwards.

james
05-07-2012, 01:19 PM
TFC is in no financial trouble. But i would like to see someone who loves soccer and runs it morel like the owners at portland or seattle. I don't think people at MLSE have a clue how to run a team.

ryan
05-07-2012, 02:12 PM
I would even say a step backwards.

Backwards from 0? Interesting.

First time to acquire negative points. TFC the record smashers!



If MLS came in heavy handed on a wounded fanbase they'll drive everyone away. I don't think they are that stupid... but life would be harder no doubt.

Oblio2
05-07-2012, 02:14 PM
Should MLS buy TFC and operate it until they find a suitable owner? It will be similar to New Orleans Hornets situation in NBA where the league owns the team and then sells it later on.

It's obvious MLSE aren't capable of running a soccer team especially MLSE are too busy focusing their other sports teams.

Why?
Just because we are crap.....C'mon

Whoop
05-07-2012, 02:51 PM
MLSE, or Bell/Rogers in the future, should spend the money to hire a soccer president. This guy would oversee the whole soccer ops. Not a MLSE executive or board member. This President would report to MLSE.

The technical director or GM, the person responsible for contracting players, would report to the President. The coach would report to the TD or GM.

Instead you have a management team that is a mess that reports to a non-soccer guy.

TFC07
05-07-2012, 04:21 PM
People here got to realize that MLS will temporary "own" TFC until they find new owners.

Even though TFC is making a profit now doesn't mean they will continue making profit in the future if they keep losing on field.

nfitz
05-07-2012, 07:53 PM
People here got to realize that MLS will temporary "own" TFC until they find new owners.I've heard no plans about this ... or is this some fantasy FIFA 2013 thing.


Even though TFC is making a profit now doesn't mean they will continue making profit in the future if they keep losing on field.Works for the Maple Leafs. Though I'm sure we'll figure it out in a decade or two. No reason to panic. Keep calm and carry on.

TFC07
05-07-2012, 07:57 PM
I've heard no plans about this ... or is this some fantasy FIFA 2013 thing.

No we haven't heard in soccer, but we have heard this in other professional leagues in North America. Currently New Orleans (NBA) and Phoenix Coyotes (NHL) are owned by the league.


Works for the Maple Leafs. Though I'm sure we'll figure it out in a decade or two. No reason to panic. Keep calm and carry on.

But we're not Maple Leafs; we are soccer team playing in MLS. If attendance keeps on declining and TFC keeps on losing then the league might have to step in.

nfitz
05-07-2012, 08:00 PM
No we haven't heard in soccer, but we have heard this in other professional leagues in North America. Currently New Orleans (NBA) and Phoenix Coyotes (NHL) are owned by the league.Completely different situation. MLSE is quit solvent. There's not even any indication they are losing money on TFC.


But we're not Maple Leafs; we are soccer team playing in MLS. If attendance keeps on declining and TFC keeps on losing then the league might have to step in.Not sure where this is coming from. Many MLS teams would kill for the kind of attendance we got on Saturday - and at much higher ticket prices than they get, and with a better TV deal than they get. If you think TFC is on the verge of financial collapse, then your about as wrong as it's possible to be.

It's an ugly situation, but I don't see the need to completely over-dramatize the situation, and panic.

TFC07
05-07-2012, 08:06 PM
Completely different situation. MLSE is quit solvent. There's not even any indication they are losing money on TFC.

With new ownership, who knows where TFC stands? Currently ML$E isn't doing enough to improve on-field product (due to divided management).


Not sure where this is coming from. Many MLS teams would kill for the kind of attendance we got on Saturday - and at much higher ticket prices than they get, and with a better TV deal than they get. If you think TFC is on the verge of financial collapse, then your about as wrong as it's possible to be.

It's an ugly situation, but I don't see the need to completely over-dramatize the situation, and panic.

I am thinking long term here. TFC is slowly declining! If they don't approve their on-field product, then eventually they'll lose fans and start losing money.

narduch
05-07-2012, 08:14 PM
I am thinking long term here. TFC is slowly declining! If they don't approve their on-field product, then eventually they'll lose fans and start losing money.

I agree.

You have to wonder how willing the team will be to pay for DP players if the attendance decline continues.

Torontotonto
05-07-2012, 08:42 PM
I know Eugene Melnyk at one point was interested of bringing a MLS team in Ottawa. Maybe if TFC was for sale, he might be interested of owning TFC. lol

And moving it to Ottawa...not

TFC07
05-07-2012, 08:51 PM
And moving it to Ottawa...not

Why would he move a Toronto team to Ottawa? Btw isn't Eugene Melnyk from GTA?

spe18
05-07-2012, 09:10 PM
No we haven't heard in soccer, but we have heard this in other professional leagues in North America. Currently New Orleans (NBA) and Phoenix Coyotes (NHL) are owned by the league.



But we're not Maple Leafs; we are soccer team playing in MLS. If attendance keeps on declining and TFC keeps on losing then the league might have to step in.

I've been told that break even point for tfc is around 12-13k fans/game :)

Shakes McQueen
05-07-2012, 10:44 PM
This is an absurd suggestion, and has a zero percent chance of happening. For starters, I doubt MLS have the ability to easily and forcefully buy back teams in their own league (at least not without a years long court fight from the current owners). Secondly, MLS aren't going to buy back a team based on the fact that they've been lousy for six years.

Thirdly, from a corporate perspective, I suspect MLS view MLSE as ideal owners - financially solvent (and strong), and re-investing into training and academy facilities/programs. Not a fly-by-night private owner with dodgy financing, who will give them a potential franchise relocation headache after a few years.

And let us not forget who it was the recommended MLSE hire Mo Johnston in the first place.

- Scott

Abou Sky
05-08-2012, 12:43 AM
I can get behind the concept as well, but I want to give Bell/Rogers a kick at the can first. I believe the new ownership group will have a vested interest in putting a winning product on the pitch.

I know a lot of people think it will be 'here comes the new boss, same as the old boss' BUT: Broadcast rights are paid to the team, winning team = more money for rights.

In the past MLSE saw only part of that pie.

Bell/Rogers will NOT have to pay broadcast rights and they get the whole pie.

Simple terms:

Winning team gets $100 more in broadcast rights, costs $80 to make winning team (FO to Pitch) so winning team is worth an additional 25% BUT may not work out.

Broadcaster pays $100 for rights and sells for $130, but only if product is available.

NEW SITUATION: winning team brings in $130, and costs $80, that is 62.5% upside potential.

Numbers are oversimplified but I think the point is clear, the risk/reward equation with Bell/Rogers owning the team is very different so there is a good chance we will see those risks taken to reap the greater reward.

I wish Ted Rogers was still alive because that man had GUTS and was a risk taker. Even though not a sports fan he knew to win the heart of Toronto he had to own a team.

TorontoPat
05-13-2012, 05:18 PM
I voted no, mainly because it would be a bad business decision. TFC value is dropping like a rock. Next season BMO won't be half filled.

nfitz
05-13-2012, 05:48 PM
Next season BMO won't be half filled.Someone seems to say that every season.

TorontoPat
05-13-2012, 05:59 PM
I won't be renewing my pair. Not only is the team playing poorly, I could live with that for awhile but this is just plain silly. The real thing that ticks me off is most of my row in Dark grey is empty. Whenever people do sit near us, quite often we over hear them say they got the tickets as some sort of freebie, one group of 4 guys claimed they paid 20 bucks each.

Fort York Redcoat
05-13-2012, 06:08 PM
^You could always downgrade next year. I don't see why anyone would be jealous of scalped tix.

TorontoPat
05-13-2012, 06:37 PM
^You could always downgrade next year. I don't see why anyone would be jealous of scalped tix.

I'm certainly not jealous other people were smarter than I. I do feel stupid though, there will be no problem cherry picking games next season. There will be no need for season seats. That is the door that has been opened and any new owner would have to be prepared to wait a couple of years to get full houses back. That is why I think the franchise value is in freefall. Obvious to all the longer we lose the longer to get bandwagoners like myself, back to full season seats.

Pookie
05-13-2012, 06:48 PM
At this stage, is TFC even turning a profit and making money for MLS?

I'd be interested to see.

Sure would. Best numbers we have are Forbes' estimate that TFC had a net operating income of $2.1M in 2007. Later, in 2009, they said that TFC and Seattle were the only clubs turning a profit (though didn't release the figures).

That was before our payroll climbed to $8.3M per season and before they dropped the money on the Academy ($17.6M total) and grass surface for the 2010 season (estimated $5M). I have no idea how those two expenses are amortized. On the revenue side, 2007 and 2009 ticket prices are not what they are now but did revenue climb that much? They aren't the sell out they once were.

Sure would be interesting to see the outcome of another team valuation.

Oldtimer
05-13-2012, 07:06 PM
Sponsorships are up since 2007.

nfitz
05-13-2012, 09:18 PM
Sponsorships are up since 2007.Significantly, if I remember the press release about the new deal with BMO. So are the TV rights, I'd think. I'd hardly think revenue from ticket sales is down from 2007, given that there were 15 competitive home games that year, and we will have a minimum of 21 this year; 23 if we beat Vancouver. 23 last year. Actual attendance may be a beat weaker, but I'm not sure the sales are down much, and lord knows the prices have gone up.

I don't think building the academy facilities would be an operational cost. I'm sure the academy operational cost is up a bit, but not where near the cost of a DP or two.

Kevvv
05-13-2012, 09:38 PM
I'm saving myself for the poll on whether MLSE should buy us an ice cream

Oldtimer
05-13-2012, 09:58 PM
SUM is a lot more profitable, too. The "losses" that most MLS clubs were showing was a bargaining tool for the negotiations leading up to the latest contract. They deliberately excluded all SUM profits from the calculation.

That means of course they are excluding TV revenues (which go through SUM), and revenues for friendlies against Euro or Mexican clubs, all of which use MLS players. (One could argue to exclude SUM revenues from Mexican MNT matches played in the US, when dealing with the union, although not for MLS club profitability). SUM is a massive money machine, and being the owner/operator of an MLS franchise means that cash flows into your profits.

nfitz
05-13-2012, 10:16 PM
I'm blanking .... SUM?

Roogsy
05-13-2012, 10:19 PM
The marketing and arm of MLS and US Soccer I believe. "Soccer United Marketing" or something like that.

Oldtimer
05-14-2012, 05:40 AM
SUM = "Soccer United Marketing"

http://www.sumworld.com/


Founded in 2002, Soccer United Marketing (SUM) is the preeminent soccer business company in North America. SUM holds the exclusive rights to the most important soccer properties in the region, including: all commercial rights to Major League Soccer; the United States Soccer Federation; promotional and marketing rights to Mexican National Team games played in the United States; and the CONCACAF Gold Cup™. SUM also manages promotional and marketing rights in the United States for Mexico’s most popular sports team, Club Deportivo Guadalajara (Chivas).

In 2008, SUM entered into a long term partnership with FC Barcelona which includes tours of the legendary Spanish club. In early 2009, SUM announced the creation of the SUM Digital Network, the only soccer advertising network of its kind, covering all facets of the sport in the U.S., and which allows advertisers to reach millions of soccer fans via online advertising and sponsorships campaigns. These global properties are represented by SUM’s slogan: One Sport. One Company.™ For more information, please visit www.SUMworld.com.



It's mostly owned by the MLS Clubs (a small portion was sold recently). Owning an MLS Club gives you a stake in SUM. The real money in MLS doesn't come from the team you own, it's from the portion of SUM.

Pookie
05-14-2012, 09:50 AM
^ that SUM connection between Barcelona and MLS could explain why Henry and Marquez had a $0 transfer fee set by Barcelona if they ended up in New York. Fee was rumoured to be $5M for any other club, including MLS teams.

You know, if you believed in the "League wants certain markets to be successful" theory. Seems both the league and SUM could gain a benefit from increased media exposure in the largest market.