PDA

View Full Version : MLSE almost ready to name new President and CEO



Red CB Toronto
05-21-2015, 10:33 PM
Wonder who this will be and how much interest they have in soccer. It's a big act to follow after Tim's stay in town. Seems. There may still be some debate going on within the dysfunctional boardroom, man this really is circus.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/mlse-close-to-hiring-new-ceo-to-replace-tim-leiweke/article24560505/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe

Auzzy
05-21-2015, 10:38 PM
What if the new president doesn't like Babcock... LOL...

TFC07
05-21-2015, 11:21 PM
I am sure this new president and CEO will be a hockey guy to fix Leafs so Rogers can make money off their TV deal.

__wowza
05-22-2015, 12:41 AM
I am sure this new president and CEO will be a hockey guy to fix Leafs so Rogers can make money off their TV deal.

used to work at rogers, got an inside account of all of this.

STORY TIME FOLKS!!

most of it had to do with the rogers gamecenter. they centered it around the bright idea that people wanted to watch hockey on their tablets and computers instead of.. wait for it.. on their TV! or at a bar! the two places you'd most likely want to watch hockey. the commercials showed folks walking around their house watching hockey on their tablets, watching a game on their phone on the bus, without taking into account that hockey fans would most likely be watching at home, at a bar, or at a friends.

games were also incredibly cumbersome to stream. a full game in HD on your computer would've been 2 - 4 gigs. you watch the leafs every saturday, that's 16 gigs on hockey for games you would most likely be watching on your TV. the whole thing was $299.99 for the entire season (not including internet usage costs), for every game (excluding blackouts) with replays (which you could watch if you had a PVR). two weeks into the campaign they dropped the price. a week after that it was free for the entire season minus the playoffs. a week after that it was completely free.. AND PEOPLE STILL DIDN'T WANT IT. why? because families were worried about their bandwidth being exceeded, and they really didn't think they'd remember to cancel it for the next year. we had to answer phones with "rogers plus, home of rogers gamecenter your new home for hockey!", and slide it into every conversation we had with a customer. we had hockey themed uniforms and stores with specific sections to look like a hockey rink, and it STILL didn't sell. it was all pretty embarrassing.

so you pair all of that with the heavy ad campaign (you must've seen the commercials, the bus ads, billboards, etc) and the company ate shit.

i can't tell you how much they banked on this being the "evolution" of how people watch hockey in this country, but it it was a considerable amount.
look at it this way.. closer to the end of the holidays they gave stores the ED to release the bottom 2 sellers from each store in canada to recoup the loss, and they were still down 19% in earnings for the quarter OVER THE HOLIDAYS (ie: when people buy the most shit).


so yeah.. it was a pretty massive fuckup to say the least.

Oldtimer
05-22-2015, 05:36 AM
^ I bet the genius executives that pushed that one make many times the average Rogers employees wage, because they are supposedly "talent," whereas the ordinary employees who could quickly see it wasn't working are just "resources."

Business leaders are getting excessively excited about using phones when they aren't the best choice. Very few people fly using their ticket on their phone. People aren't tapping their phones at the checkout, and MLS Live is way better on a computer screen.

Shakes McQueen
05-22-2015, 05:48 AM
Never understood the idea of pushing sports on phones and tablets. Who has ever watched a live hockey game on their phone?! I get that for Rogers, it'd be a fantastic "synergy" (just threw up a little in my mouth) of their various services, but you can't force people to do something they have no utility for, through sheer will of advertising.

You might get a few people to watch some pivotal playoff game on a city bus or something, but it'll never be widespread.

OgtheDim
05-22-2015, 06:03 AM
They looked at all the people streaming the Olympics in Vancouver and out of London and all the people streaming World Cup matches and thought in a hockey mad country we'd of course all pay to watch.


Met reality of "Do I really want to go over my bandwith to watch San Jose vs. Nashville on a Thursday night?".

Big bet gone bad.

TFC Tifoso
05-22-2015, 07:23 AM
I streamed the Olympics and WC at work because I really had no choice....but while at home, I will watch sports on a 50"+ HDTV, 11 times out of 10.......never on a crappy cell phone screen.....its baffling to think how they would see things otherwise......

Fort York Redcoat
05-22-2015, 07:44 AM
What I'm sure they've found out is that regular season games are an event because they make you stop and be somewhere for awhile. They are lengthier than an Olympic event or a tournament that one needs to catch up on.

This tablet or phone function should be a limited time offer for playoffs or tournaments when people don't have time to watch at home or the pub a games length at a time.

Anyway, I'm sure I won't recognize or get to follow most of the moves made by the next schmuck they get. But if I had to guess it'll be a side mouth talking big promiser or a fast talking, saying nothing snake oil seller.

Ossington Mental Youth
05-22-2015, 07:59 AM
ach im worried about this. For all the issues we've had with TL and the Argos, its been predominantly good and we know where he stands re: TFC

Phil
05-22-2015, 08:04 AM
Wonder who this will be and how much interest they have in soccer. It's a big act to follow after Tim's stay in town. Seems. There may still be some debate going on within the dysfunctional boardroom, man this really is circus.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/mlse-close-to-hiring-new-ceo-to-replace-tim-leiweke/article24560505/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe

Our first real tip off to how messed up all this is this week alone - Bell and Larry T buying a team to bail them out of another partners stables - only to have it put awkwardly into some weird bastard child portfolio and then get their thunder taken away by a surprise manager appointment.

Things are embarrassingly bad for all involved in that mess.

Here we thought the teachers pension plan was bad.

ag futbol
05-22-2015, 08:18 AM
Business leaders are getting excessively excited about using phones when they aren't the best choice. Very few people fly using their ticket on their phone. People aren't tapping their phones at the checkout, and MLS Live is way better on a computer screen.
Maybe it's just the demographic I am around but I find it very uncommon for people under 30 to have anything but a plane ticket on their phone. I wouldn't be surprised if payments took off at some point (I work for a bank).

I get your point though, there is a limit to how much people want to use their phone. Why would anyone want to look at a small tablet / phone screen when they could be watching on a larger surface? Some people have a warped idea of how far to take tech and if inevitably fails.

In the end these cable companies know their revenue stream is dying so they are trying hard to wrap up content. Unfortunately if history is any guide, they'll find out that 100% of the value is in the content and pretty much none is in the distribution channel. The long term synergistic value of MLSE to Bogers looks questionable to me.

It'd be easy at some point for the sports leagues out there to determine they get more of the pie by offering something direct(without blackouts -restrictions) and all of a sudden any new cable deal looks a lot less lucrative.

Beach_Red
05-22-2015, 08:51 AM
Never understood the idea of pushing sports on phones and tablets. Who has ever watched a live hockey game on their phone?! I get that for Rogers, it'd be a fantastic "synergy" (just threw up a little in my mouth) of their various services, but you can't force people to do something they have no utility for, through sheer will of advertising.

You might get a few people to watch some pivotal playoff game on a city bus or something, but it'll never be widespread.

No, but the tradition in Canada has always been to control it at the source so that if people do want it they din't have any choices. Our media companies have never really done anything to create demand they just ride on what's there. They don't make their own shows they just buy American shows and in this case Rogers was hoping to cash in on the demand that they felt already existed for hockey and they overestimated it.

C.Ronaldo
05-22-2015, 09:19 AM
Our first real tip off to how messed up all this is this week alone - Bell and Larry T buying a team to bail them out of another partners stables - only to have it put awkwardly into some weird bastard child portfolio and then get their thunder taken away by a surprise manager appointment.

Things are embarrassingly bad for all involved in that mess.

Here we thought the teachers pension plan was bad.

teachers pension plan had one goal, big secure ROI for the teachers pension. They achieved that and got out at the peak. They never made any promises beyond that.

C.Ronaldo
05-22-2015, 09:24 AM
Maybe it's just the demographic I am around but I find it very uncommon for people under 30 to have anything but a plane ticket on their phone. I wouldn't be surprised if payments took off at some point (I work for a bank).

I get your point though, there is a limit to how much people want to use their phone. Why would anyone want to look at a small tablet / phone screen when they could be watching on a larger surface? Some people have a warped idea of how far to take tech and if inevitably fails.

In the end these cable companies know their revenue stream is dying so they are trying hard to wrap up content. Unfortunately if history is any guide, they'll find out that 100% of the value is in the content and pretty much none is in the distribution channel. The long term synergistic value of MLSE to Bogers looks questionable to me.

It'd be easy at some point for the sports leagues out there to determine they get more of the pie by offering something direct(without blackouts -restrictions) and all of a sudden any new cable deal looks a lot less lucrative.

Agreed, if MLSE was their own entity, they could easily prop up a bunch of free over the air antennas, a you tube channel / live stream app, hook up with netflix and distribute their own in house channel and take it a bigger piece of the pie.


Its nice to see rogers stupidly low bandwidth cap bite them in their own arse

Detroit_TFC
05-22-2015, 10:18 AM
The MLSE Bell-Rogers divorce proceedings, when they inevitably happen, will be out of this world.

It will be entertaining but probably will not be good for TFC.

Initial B
05-22-2015, 12:27 PM
The MLSE Bell-Rogers divorce proceedings, when they inevitably happen, will be out of this world.

It will be entertaining but probably will not be good for TFC.
TFC, Raptors, BMO to Bell. Marlies, Leafs, ACC to Rogers. That's how I'd split the kids. They'll probably wait until Tannenbaum dies before doing so.

Jack
05-22-2015, 12:51 PM
I do watch a lot of TV on my tablet. MLS live, too. That's partly because I like to smoke my pipe while watching, so I have to sit on the balcony g:D, but also because we don't have cable.

Beach_Red
05-22-2015, 01:06 PM
I do watch a lot of TV on my tablet. MLS live, too. That's partly because I like to smoke my pipe while watching, so I have to sit on the balcony g:D, but also because we don't have cable.

Do you get all the TFC games with MLS Live?

Eleven
05-22-2015, 01:17 PM
First year with MLS Live, we've had TFC on for every MLS away game. No idea about home games, cause we're at those games

GhostKiller
05-22-2015, 01:24 PM
Do you get all the TFC games with MLS Live?
I use Unblock-us and set my DSN to America. This way I get all the TFC games with no Black-Out

Jack
05-22-2015, 01:31 PM
I use Unblock-us and set my DSN to America. This way I get all the TFC games with no Black-Out
This doesn't always work for me on the iPad. On Apple TV it is no longer supported, which sucks. On the PC, it works every time, so I use AirParrot to send my screen to the Apple TV and watch on the big TV.

OgtheDim
05-22-2015, 01:35 PM
MLS Live was supposed to die in the States this season and run in Canada only for one year. They brought it back due to Univision not being ready to stream, IIRC.

The MLS TV contract for Canada is up after this season. I suspect they will try to tie MLS streaming to being a Bell or Rogers customer like they are planning to do in the States - that will fail.

Beach_Red
05-22-2015, 01:35 PM
This doesn't always work for me on the iPad. On Apple TV it is no longer supported, which sucks. On the PC, it works every time, so I use AirParrot to send my screen to the Apple TV and watch on the big TV.

Thanks, sounds like we have the same set-up.

Beach_Red
05-22-2015, 01:37 PM
MLS Live was supposed to die in the States this season and run in Canada only for one year. They brought it back due to Univision not being ready to stream, IIRC.

The MLS TV contract for Canada is up after this season. I suspect they will try to tie MLS streaming to being a Bell or Rogers customer like they are planning to do in the States - that will fail.

What do you mean by fail? Have any non-Bell or Rogers customers signed up for Shomi or Crave online? Those are even available for AppleTV but you have to be a Rogers cable or Bell Fibe subscriber. It's ridiculous, really, but it's the way they operate.

bones
05-22-2015, 01:42 PM
The MLSE Bell-Rogers divorce proceedings, when they inevitably happen, will be out of this world.

It will be entertaining but probably will not be good for TFC.

Originally I was thinking the same way too, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that the divorce will see a sale of TFC to an independent owner. While this will mean less spending etc on large instant success talent, perhaps that would be a good thing in the long run, to build out the team first then add a DP or 2 to push us over the top. One thing for sure will happen, a new independent owner will not look too kindly on sharing a pitch with the Argonothings.

Anyhoo, one can dream.

C.Ronaldo
05-22-2015, 01:56 PM
This doesn't always work for me on the iPad. On Apple TV it is no longer supported, which sucks. On the PC, it works every time, so I use AirParrot to send my screen to the Apple TV and watch on the big TV.

not asure about apple

but androids have a gps setting in the deveoper options, you click that, then download an app like FakeGPS

it tells the phone your somewhere else, I dont even use a vpnr / dns changer on the tablet or phone.

i mirror it with the chromecast ($40) if i want to see it on my tv

Ossington Mental Youth
05-22-2015, 03:03 PM
not asure about apple

but androids have a gps setting in the deveoper options, you click that, then download an app like FakeGPS

it tells the phone your somewhere else, I dont even use a vpnr / dns changer on the tablet or phone.

i mirror it with the chromecast ($40) if i want to see it on my tv

apple is the same but its gotta be jailbroken, i hate apple shit

C.Ronaldo
05-22-2015, 03:25 PM
^ no blackouts suck!

Beach_Red
05-22-2015, 04:00 PM
^ Also subscriptions. I wish I could buy them one game at a time.

__wowza
05-22-2015, 04:15 PM
^ I bet the genius executives that pushed that one make many times the average Rogers employees wage, because they are supposedly "talent," whereas the ordinary employees who could quickly see it wasn't working are just "resources."

which is funny because any rogers employee could've told you this wouldn't have worked. we had a 2 day training session on game center, half of it was explaining how to pitch the value for the cost only to find out the fuckin thing would be made free within a month anyways. after that we got a quiz from our manager because they found out an auditor was coming in to do one on ones to test our product knowledge. the auditor asked me how i felt about game center, and whether or not i was excited for it, and i was blunt. the conversation went as followed:


me: not really. i can watch games anytime i want. if it was a playoff game, i'd probably make a point to be at home and if i was stuck somewhere, it'd probably be somewhere i wouldn't have access to my cell or tablet like work. if i was out with my girlfriend or friends they'd understand a playoff game was on and we wouldn't be out. they know the drill.

auditor: (chuckles) well, you said you and your girlfriend don't have cable, so wouldn't you be able to see the value in edging (ie: making sure the customer leaves the store with something so) this over a traditional cable package?

me: i stream games illegally.

auditor: but the quality can't be that great.

me: compared to what, HD? i don't care. i want to see a game and at the end of the day you're competing with FREE. that's what you have to contend with, with my generation, you have to contend with FREE. with me thinking 'wow, my paycheque is pretty small this week. should i spend it on a service from rogers.. and to be honest most of the people i talk to all day think we're already ripping them off anyways.. or should i get it for FREE because i can google 'watch bruins hockey online' and have fifty links come up.. hmmmmm..

not to sound like a bitter ex-employee, but i was one of the people let go specifically because i was more customer service than sales (something i told my manager before i got hired). i would be the asshole who said things like "dude, you told me you watch stuff online. why are you paying $45 a month for a cable hookup when you can just upgrade your internet to unlimited for $15 a month? BOOM! i just saved you $360 a year."


Never understood the idea of pushing sports on phones and tablets. Who has ever watched a live hockey game on their phone?! I get that for Rogers, it'd be a fantastic "synergy" (just threw up a little in my mouth) of their various services, but you can't force people to do something they have no utility for, through sheer will of advertising.

that's where rogers lost the plot. they stressed "value for quality" as their selling point a couple months into my year long stint there. that's business speak for "you're paying a lot, but look at all this other cool stuff you could get (if you pay for it)!". it's good to have in the back pocket, but known your limitations. i'm sure 95% of the population would rather have a cheaper cell phone/internet/cable package than 50 different services. i had to up sell EIGHT different things every time i spoke to someone, before i was let go. EIGHT. if you came in to get your broken cell looked at i had to drop the following questions:

- do you pay for your bills using your credit card? (rogers mastercard)
- does anyone in your house follow hockey? (rogers game center)
- are you planning on travelling anytime soon? (to the states: rogers stripes which is a pretty good service to be fair) (elsewhere: long distance value pack)
- do you have any other services with rogers? (rogers internet/cable/home phone/smart home monitoring/cell phones depending on which you didn't have)
- do you know when your contract ends? (rogers cell)
- have you heard about our smart home monitoring system? (rogers SHM)
- and whatever promotion we had going on at the time in the form of a question.

just because you came into the store to get your cell phone sent for repair. if we got a secret shopper, and we didn't ask each of these questions, we took shit from our managers because they would take shit from their district managers. fuck man.. they took out the bill payment machines at our store because the district manager felt we should be "engaging every customer" (ie: trying to pitch to people who were in the store solely to pay a bill). sorry, end rant.

Richard
05-22-2015, 04:22 PM
^^^^Very enlightening, and wow do we need some real competition to get these telecommunication giants set straight.

__wowza
05-22-2015, 04:38 PM
^^^^Very enlightening, and wow do we need some real competition to get these telecommunication giants set straight.

if you ever need to see how much telecom in this country needs to change with the lang and o'leary exchange with naguib onsi sawiris, he was the president of orascom telecom media who owned WIND mobile. i'll paraphrase and sum up what he said:

"fuck this country. you claim you're a capitalist society but your government fucks you. i try and come in here and provide a better service for cheaper prices, then rogers and bell run to your government and go 'oh help! help! he's stealing canadian jobs!' and my company gets taxed out the ass until we can't remain competitive anymore. if rogers and bell are so great, why can't they exist outside of your country? my company operates worldwide, so does vodaphone and virgin. you know why? because we're competitive. if rogers and bell tried to move outside of your country they would fail with what they're offering you right now because they don't understand how to run a competitive business in a free market and need the government to protect them whenever a foreign owned business wants to offer YOUR people a better service. what would happen if the government didn't interfere? they would have to drop their prices to challenge us, but they aren't prepared to do that so they cry 'canadian jobs!'. i wish we'd never come here."

for those of you wondering why WIND cell phones don't work in certain areas.. those are the frequencies and cell towers he's talking about rogers/bell buying.
it was probably the most biting thing i've ever seen. have a look if you've got six minutes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g61PnQanEg

TFC07
05-22-2015, 04:50 PM
if you ever need to see how much telecom in this country needs to change with the lang and o'leary exchange with naguib onsi sawiris, he was the president of orascom telecom media who owned WIND mobile. i'll paraphrase and sum up what he said:

"fuck this country. you claim you're a capitalist society but your government fucks you. i try and come in here and provide a better service for cheaper prices, then rogers and bell run to your government and go 'oh help! help! he's stealing canadian jobs!' and my company gets taxed out the ass until we can't remain competitive anymore. if rogers and bell are so great, why can't they exist outside of your country? my company operates worldwide, so does vodaphone and virgin. you know why? because we're competitive. if rogers and bell tried to move outside of your country they would fail with what they're offering you right now because they don't understand how to run a competitive business in a free market and need the government to protect them whenever a foreign owned business wants to offer YOUR people a better service. what would happen if the government didn't interfere? they would have to drop their prices to challenge us, but they aren't prepared to do that so they cry 'canadian jobs!'. i wish we'd never come here."

it was probably the most biting thing i've ever seen. have a look if you've got six minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g61PnQanEg

Yup, I remember seeing this interview.

Did you remember when Verizon was flirting about buying WIND and how Big 3 got together whine to government while spent millions on advertisement saying how "Canadian jobs" (you know like those Bell Call Centres in India) will be affected by Verizon invasion into Canada?

Beach_Red
05-22-2015, 04:55 PM
if you ever need to see how much telecom in this country needs to change with the lang and o'leary exchange with naguib onsi sawiris, he was the president of orascom telecom media who owned WIND mobile. i'll paraphrase and sum up what he said:

"fuck this country. you claim you're a capitalist society but your government fucks you. i try and come in here and provide a better service for cheaper prices, then rogers and bell run to your government and go 'oh help! help! he's stealing canadian jobs!' and my company gets taxed out the ass until we can't remain competitive anymore. if rogers and bell are so great, why can't they exist outside of your country? my company operates worldwide, so does vodaphone and virgin. you know why? because we're competitive. if rogers and bell tried to move outside of your country they would fail with what they're offering you right now because they don't understand how to run a competitive business in a free market and need the government to protect them whenever a foreign owned business wants to offer YOUR people a better service. what would happen if the government didn't interfere? they would have to drop their prices to challenge us, but they aren't prepared to do that so they cry 'canadian jobs!'. i wish we'd never come here."

for those of you wondering why WIND cell phones don't work in certain areas.. those are the frequencies and cell towers he's talking about rogers/bell buying.
it was probably the most biting thing i've ever seen. have a look if you've got six minutes.



This also why their sports teams can't win.

brad
05-22-2015, 06:18 PM
I remember they used to have some sort of Internet over 3G hub they tried to sell. It was exactly what the iPhone Hotspot does for free. Rogers folks were under instruction to try and sell those to iPhone customers and were not allowed to talk about the iPhone hotspot at all. How is that for shady - trying to sell you a product you don't need - when you already have something that does exactly the same thing.

I got screwed by them years ago. I switched from Bell ExpressVu to Rogers, and they were running a promo. Turn in your ExpressVu receiver and get a free PVR for life. I did that, got it free for a year and then they started billing me. They said it was a year promo only and denied all existence of a PVR for life promo. Unfortunate I was young and dumb and didn't keep the contract. I read a couple of years later they took an absolute bath on that promo and they took every on off it and were under strict instructions to deny it ever existed.

reggie
05-22-2015, 07:02 PM
according to fredman its john cassaday

TFC07
05-22-2015, 07:21 PM
according to fredman its john cassaday

Isn't he kind of old to be CEO and President of MLSE? I am sure Rogers and Bell were looking for someone younger.

OgtheDim
05-22-2015, 09:40 PM
Apparently TSN first reported him as being an option back in the fall before he retired from Corus. As reports are nobody with a sports conglomerate background wanted the job, he must have been lobbying for it hard and MLSE thought they had to move on from TL. But, I don't see what value he adds to MLSE as a whole apart from being able to speak BCE and Rogers speak. He's a broadcast dude through and through. But, that's it. He's not an obvious puck head - the hockey journalists will be scratching their heads.

I think he's a stop gap for 3 years until they land somebody else.

If true, that's probably good for TFC as he won't interfere in anything sports related. Expect a TFC president to be hired soon then.

jazzy
05-22-2015, 09:55 PM
if you ever need to see how much telecom in this country needs to change with the lang and o'leary exchange with naguib onsi sawiris, he was the president of orascom telecom media who owned WIND mobile. i'll paraphrase and sum up what he said:

"fuck this country. you claim you're a capitalist society but your government fucks you. i try and come in here and provide a better service for cheaper prices, then rogers and bell run to your government and go 'oh help! help! he's stealing canadian jobs!' and my company gets taxed out the ass until we can't remain competitive anymore. if rogers and bell are so great, why can't they exist outside of your country? my company operates worldwide, so does vodaphone and virgin. you know why? because we're competitive. if rogers and bell tried to move outside of your country they would fail with what they're offering you right now because they don't understand how to run a competitive business in a free market and need the government to protect them whenever a foreign owned business wants to offer YOUR people a better service. what would happen if the government didn't interfere? they would have to drop their prices to challenge us, but they aren't prepared to do that so they cry 'canadian jobs!'. i wish we'd never come here."

for those of you wondering why WIND cell phones don't work in certain areas.. those are the frequencies and cell towers he's talking about rogers/bell buying.
it was probably the most biting thing i've ever seen. have a look if you've got six minutes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g61PnQanEg


the glory of business in Canada.........monopolies rule , with future jobs pending for our government leaders.......

Qman
05-29-2015, 06:40 PM
according to fredman its john cassaday


TL is staying longer until they finalize the new man .... reportly cassaday.

skypilot69
05-30-2015, 12:36 PM
Wow, I learned a lot about our telecom rip offs. Thanks for the info! And when are the CRTC supposed to do something about it?

On the new pres of MLSE

I hope its is a footie guy for our sake!

But it better not be that Douchebag Sepp Bladder:rolleyes:

Oh, that won't be a problem as he is not a footie guy anywayg:D

Cheers

Beach_Red
05-30-2015, 03:22 PM
Wow, I learned a lot about our telecom rip offs. Thanks for the info! And when are the CRTC supposed to do something about it?

On the new pres of MLSE

I hope its is a footie guy for our sake!

But it better not be that Douchebag Sepp Bladder:rolleyes:

Oh, that won't be a problem as he is not a footie guy anywayg:D

Cheers

I just like that there's a Wikipedia entry for it:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

ensco
06-02-2015, 11:54 AM
Was going to post this in the Argos to BMO thread, but it rightly belongs here:

The key issue for Bogers is changing the Leafs relationship with the NHL. The Leafs historical willingness to be poodles to these guys is a cosmic joke.

I believe the number one thing that got Burke fired by the new owners was Burke's cozy relationship with Bettman and the existing NHL power structure. There is simply no way that the Leafs should have been supporting, let alone at the forefront, of the hard cap leadership in the last strike.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/new-leafs-owners-said-to-dislike-burke-from-get-go/article7152064/

I think getting the right person to be the point man for getting some separation from the Boston/Philly cabal that has controlled the league for decades, may be the big issue that is stalling the CEO search. Cassaday is a custodian. No way he can be that guy.

I think the guy who will get the job, for Babcock-type dough, is John Collins, COO of the league.

Collins invented the Winter Classic when he was at NBC, he represented the NHL in the Rogers negotiations, and his mandate will be to tell Bettman/Snyder/Jacobs, very nicely, to go eff themselves if they don't like the idea of the Leafs playing lots of games in this beautiful new outdoor stadium that they have just lovingly built.

Beach_Red
06-02-2015, 12:06 PM
Was going to post this in the Argos to BMO thread, but it rightly belongs here:

The key issue for Bogers is changing the Leafs relationship with the NHL. The Leafs historical willingness to be poodles to these guys is a cosmic joke.

I believe the number one thing that got Burke fired by the new owners was Burke's cozy relationship with Bettman and the existing NHL power structure. There is simply no way that the Leafs should have been supporting, let alone at the forefront, of the hard cap leadership in the last strike.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/new-leafs-owners-said-to-dislike-burke-from-get-go/article7152064/

I think getting the right person to be the point man for getting some separation from the Boston/Philly cabal that has controlled the league for decades, may be the big issue that is stalling the CEO search. Cassaday is a custodian. No way he can be that guy.

I think the guy who will get the job, for Babcock-type dough, is John Collins, COO of the league.

Collins invented the Winter Classic when he was at NBC, he represented the NHL in the Rogers negotiations, and his mandate will be to tell Bettman/Snyder/Jacobs, very nicely, to go eff themselves if they don't like the idea of the Leafs playing lots of games in this beautiful new outdoor stadium that they have just lovingly built.

This has always been baffling. Maybe the problem was that there was no Toronto-Montreal cabal to form a united front. It does seem like the Leafs can go it alone now. How big a change has George Cope brought to the MLSE boardroom?

Ultra & Proud
06-02-2015, 01:16 PM
A fitting candidate to run the MLSE ship has suddenly become available.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2009/11/30/1259577122300/Sepp-Blatter-001.jpg

Qman
06-02-2015, 04:05 PM
Don't think the high-price DP strategy will last past TL's reign, especially when they are drawing basically what they were pre-TL. And high-price friendlies, actually lose money now instead of bring in additional cash flow.
Probably sell off 2, and reinvest in bringing in $1m type guys (eg. laba, flop-ertbo, etc). These type of guys have been so hit-and-miss around the league, so you better put money into scouting.

OgtheDim
06-02-2015, 04:22 PM
Don't think the high-price DP strategy will last past TL's reign, especially when they are drawing basically what they were pre-TL.


Uh, paying bums in the stadium are up and paying bums total are up. And amount spent per bum in the stadium is up as well, from what I'm seeing.

DP's are here to stay.

Ultra & Proud
06-02-2015, 04:52 PM
Uh, paying bums in the stadium are up and paying bums total are up. And amount spent per bum in the stadium is up as well, from what I'm seeing.

DP's are here to stay.
Also winning doesn't hurt either and will keep the bums in the seats. Selling off DPs after (hopefully) our best season won't help either. For the paltry amount we are paying for our full roster (about equal to 1 very good veteran NBAer), it doesn't take a genius to see that it's a good investment and it goes far beyond the match attendances. I think MLSE will hire a guy who's smarter than to destroy a franchise to save about as much money as they paid Amir Johnson last year.

ensco
06-02-2015, 05:45 PM
Uh, paying bums in the stadium are up and paying bums total are up. And amount spent per bum in the stadium is up as well, from what I'm seeing.

DP's are here to stay.

We have debated this countless times, but I would point out that $100M spent on the DPs will be an epic disaster if all that happens is 5,000 more people go to games (that's worth only maybe $250K/game, or $5M a season)

Unless there is a dramatic re-rating of the TV rights value of TFC that flows from this, this level of spending on DPs will not ever recur.

jloome
06-02-2015, 05:57 PM
We have debated this countless times, but I would point out that $100M spent on the DPs will be an epic disaster if all that happens is 5,000 more people go to games (that's worth only maybe $250K/game, or $5M a season)

Unless there is a dramatic re-rating of the TV rights value of TFC that flows from this, this level of spending on DPs will not ever recur.

You're thinking in practical business terms again, lol. To these guys, a net cumulative $60 million loss (which to my math is about the minimum they'd lose) over five years is fuck all. $12M a year? They blow as much or more in debatable promotional and upper staff value in the same period, with far less chance of the bottom-line valuation of the team going up.

EDIT: Remember, this company's legend was Mr. Five Percent.

ensco
06-02-2015, 08:17 PM
^"These guys" won't be here forever.

Reminds me of all that New Economy crap in 1999-2000. The crazy times we live in are making everyone blind to the way things work, most of the time.

Most of the time, the bean counters rule the roost, and that $60M loss gets a ton of people fired and causes the new managers to never, ever go near that form of risk again.

But right now, we don't live in normal times.

Ultra & Proud
06-02-2015, 09:24 PM
^"These guys" won't be here forever.

Reminds me of all that New Economy crap in 1999-2000. The crazy times we live in are making everyone blind to the way things work, most of the time.

Most of the time, the bean counters rule the roost, and that $60M loss gets a ton of people fired and causes the new managers to never, ever go near that form of risk again.

But right now, we don't live in normal times.
This is the world of sports. Losses in $$$ don't get people fired. Losing games and fans does.

Now if they lost $60M on a condo development, then someone gets fired. No doubt.

And also I've been over this twice before; rethink or go look up my math on why that $100M number isn't what you think it is.

ManUtd4ever
06-02-2015, 09:41 PM
After Leiweke's departure, I seriously doubt that the MLSE board of governors will ever be persuaded to spend anywhere near 100 million dollars to acquire two players. The economics simply don't support such an investment.

However, I don't think we're in danger of becoming a franchise with a frugal ownership group either. I believe that management will still have the financial resources available to target high profile DPs of Defoe, Bradley, and Giovinco's calibre in the future, provided there are no record setting transfer fees involved. ;)

molenshtain
06-02-2015, 10:21 PM
After Leiweke's departure, I seriously doubt that the MLSE board of governors will ever be persuaded to spend anywhere near 100 million dollars to acquire two players. The economics simply don't support such an investment.

However, I don't think we're in danger of becoming a franchise with a frugal ownership group either. I believe that management will still have the financial resources available to target high profile DPs of Defoe, Bradley, and Giovinco's calibre in the future, provided there are no record setting transfer fees involved. ;)

those two statements are sort of contradictory. we're not going to spend a lot after Leiweke, but we're still going to spend on the highest caliber DP's?

ensco
06-02-2015, 10:30 PM
And also I've been over this twice before; rethink or go look up my math on why that $100M number isn't what you think it is.


No I insist. The pearls of wisdom never grow dull. Please lecture us again. I'll get some popcorn.

molenshtain
06-02-2015, 11:22 PM
We have debated this countless times, but I would point out that $100M spent on the DPs will be an epic disaster if all that happens is 5,000 more people go to games (that's worth only maybe $250K/game, or $5M a season)

Unless there is a dramatic re-rating of the TV rights value of TFC that flows from this, this level of spending on DPs will not ever recur.

Ideally, it's the extra playoff games, friendly's, merch and concessions that they make extra money off of in the short term, not just the increase in attendance. In the long-term, they're in financial position where they can take that sort of high profile risk. I don't think MLSE thinks that paying an entire team with massive, almost un-quantifiable revenue upside slightly less than what they plan on offering Marc Gasol this summer is a big deal.

MLSE know that come 2030, this might very well be one of the biggest leagues in the world. They want to be at the top when that happens and they're spending tons on infrastructure now so it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass later. The stadium renos, the extensive spending on FO and academy structure, the DP spending are all in service of being at the top when this league really takes off, not just at the end of the 2015 season.

If you're of the opinion that this league can compete with the Champions league and the Premiership and La Liga etc. in terms of sponsorship and and TV revenue come 20-30 years time, which it could, should the league take the necessary steps at the necessary times, than spending in the manner that MLSE is is a very intelligent investment. I think it'll probably take longer to get there, since the league seems intent on making it the slowest, most sustainable growth possible, but I think it'll get there all the same.

And that's only if you're looking at it from a monetary perspective. I think TL opened Bell and Rogers eyes as to how influential and powerful they can be as on organization in this city. Not just in terms of getting people happy about a winning product in whatever sport and earning any sort of credit around the city that comes with that in itself, but in terms of Philanthropy and Real Estate, which they've only just begun to get themselves into. They're in an almost limitless position in terms of recognition, money and influence they could have in this city, and they could get into things even outside of sport. Being the guys who finally brought this city sporting excellence across all sports the same way Boston or Chicago or L.A. have could give them licence to do pretty much as they please in this city. It's almost impossible to shy away from that kind of opportunity.

Ultra & Proud
06-03-2015, 09:02 AM
No I insist. The pearls of wisdom never grow dull. Please lecture us again. I'll get some popcorn.
Simple short version;

Roughly $100M for 5 years now. $20M per year in salary.

Season tix ; Avg price around $40 (a little more but this is easier to calculate) at 20,000 = $800K match plus with additional seats sold above that let's say that's $1M per match in ticket sales and that with all things considered is probably a bit low.

18 matches this year = approx $18M

Doesn't include friendly. Doesn't include playoffs and until we get there I wouldn't count on that $$$. Doesn't include MLS TV deal. Doesn't include local TV deal. Doesn't include boxes or that fancy club thing. Doesn't include concessions. Doesn't include in house advertising. Doesn't include digital advertising. Doesn't include jersey sponsor. Doesn't include off site sales (web & Real Sports).

Now estimate what all that would equal. I would say more than $3M (actually probably way more).

At $3M it would mean an approximate profit of $1M per season. Since it's way more than that it's safe to say they are earning a bit from TFC even with our $100M output. Winning and erasing some of the TFC PTSD that keeps people away can increase all these numbers. As it is, they make money off that investment. They could make a bit more by nickel and diming with the roster but then the total sum will trend downwards. That is not what successful business is about. Investing more should mean higher gains and that's how it is working with TFC so far. Sports business is a different fish. Generally it's about prestige and other revenue streams that come from your sports franchise(s) so a lot of owner would love to break even and be thrilled with a small profit. TFC probably generate a few mil a year in profits and based on a $20M expenditure that annual profit % would look pretty good on a portfolio.

This doesn't include back room and coaching staffs or running the Academy but even with those costs they probably still earn something or see it as an investment looking ahead. I also think that separate KIA deal is used to fund that branch anyway.

So how was your popcorn anyhow?

C.Ronaldo
06-03-2015, 09:12 AM
if you ever need to see how much telecom in this country needs to change with the lang and o'leary exchange with naguib onsi sawiris, he was the president of orascom telecom media who owned WIND mobile. i'll paraphrase and sum up what he said:

"fuck this country. you claim you're a capitalist society but your government fucks you. i try and come in here and provide a better service for cheaper prices, then rogers and bell run to your government and go 'oh help! help! he's stealing canadian jobs!' and my company gets taxed out the ass until we can't remain competitive anymore. if rogers and bell are so great, why can't they exist outside of your country? my company operates worldwide, so does vodaphone and virgin. you know why? because we're competitive. if rogers and bell tried to move outside of your country they would fail with what they're offering you right now because they don't understand how to run a competitive business in a free market and need the government to protect them whenever a foreign owned business wants to offer YOUR people a better service. what would happen if the government didn't interfere? they would have to drop their prices to challenge us, but they aren't prepared to do that so they cry 'canadian jobs!'. i wish we'd never come here."

for those of you wondering why WIND cell phones don't work in certain areas.. those are the frequencies and cell towers he's talking about rogers/bell buying.
it was probably the most biting thing i've ever seen. have a look if you've got six minutes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g61PnQanEg

from a very succesful man who has made a shit ton working in a shit ton of diff countries.

Our tele industry is an absolute joke

Qman
06-03-2015, 09:59 AM
Simple short version;

Roughly $100M for 5 years now. $20M per year in salary.

Season tix ; Avg price around $40 (a little more but this is easier to calculate) at 20,000 = $800K match plus with additional seats sold above that let's say that's $1M per match in ticket sales and that with all things considered is probably a bit low.

18 matches this year = approx $18M

Doesn't include friendly. Doesn't include playoffs and until we get there I wouldn't count on that $$$. Doesn't include MLS TV deal. Doesn't include local TV deal. Doesn't include boxes or that fancy club thing. Doesn't include concessions. Doesn't include in house advertising. Doesn't include digital advertising. Doesn't include jersey sponsor. Doesn't include off site sales (web & Real Sports).

Now estimate what all that would equal. I would say more than $3M (actually probably way more).

At $3M it would mean an approximate profit of $1M per season. Since it's way more than that it's safe to say they are earning a bit from TFC even with our $100M output. Winning and erasing some of the TFC PTSD that keeps people away can increase all these numbers. As it is, they make money off that investment. They could make a bit more by nickel and diming with the roster but then the total sum will trend downwards. That is not what successful business is about. Investing more should mean higher gains and that's how it is working with TFC so far. Sports business is a different fish. Generally it's about prestige and other revenue streams that come from your sports franchise(s) so a lot of owner would love to break even and be thrilled with a small profit. TFC probably generate a few mil a year in profits and based on a $20M expenditure that annual profit % would look pretty good on a portfolio.

This doesn't include back room and coaching staffs or running the Academy but even with those costs they probably still earn something or see it as an investment looking ahead. I also think that separate KIA deal is used to fund that branch anyway.

So how was your popcorn anyhow?

what?????
your totally missing the operating costs of the club.

simple version:
when they were spending $4M on salary, they were making $3M a year.
now they are spending $21m on salary, now they are losing up to $14M a year, probably loss is closer to $10-12 if you include the increasing SUM payments due to USMNT tv deal and selling a few more suites (which still aren't full).

- hasn't been any big revenue increasing except for SUM: Attendance is the same, maybe slightly lower based on games to date (offset by SSH tix prices that are higher from a few years ago, especially for new subscribers); no money from local TV deal (TSN/SN are losing money based on the ratings); shirt sponsor BMO came back for another year (probably at a far lower rate closer to the low price US deals that have been done recently); not making money on friendlies, probably lost money on ManCity; all the box/expensive seats have been empty this year for the first few games.

If the new ML$E CEO doesn't like soccer, he is going to shit his pants. Its just a heads up. Don't get used to the high priced DPs after TL leaves.

ensco
06-03-2015, 10:32 AM
So how was your popcorn anyhow?

OK. I appreciate that you took the time to do that.

Now the bad news: that "analysis" is terrible, a joke. You don't remotely understand marginal costs and revenues, among other problems. TFC was getting 17,000 people or whatever, and doing 100K in TV ratings, before any of these guys got here.

I am not here to police this, but please, no more of this.

Ultra & Proud
06-03-2015, 10:34 AM
what?????
your totally missing the operating costs of the club.

- hasn't been any big revenue increasing except for SUM: Attendance is the same, maybe slightly lower based on games to date (offset by SSH tix prices that are higher from a few years ago, especially for new subscribers); no money from local TV deal (TSN/SN are losing money based on the ratings); shirt sponsor BMO came back for another year (probably at a far lower rate closer to the low price US deals that have been done recently); not making money on friendlies, probably lost money on ManCity; all the box/expensive seats have been empty this year for the first few games.
Attendance is slightly higher with room to grow with winning as I said. Shirt sponsor resigned for the same deal as reported earlier this season. Man City not sure about. They had an okay turn out and since it was part of City's sister club planned tour, MLSE didn't have to eat all the costs, just the appearance fee. And all the box and expensive seats barring one box from the last time I read about it were sold out for the year not sure about that club thing but there were people in it from what I saw on TV replays. That article never mentioned the cost of those but did say those club ones were on par with Leafs & Raps.

I did also mention the operating costs (I called it backroom costs) but not sure how much that is so I didn't drop a price.


when they were spending $4M on salary, they were making $3M a year.

I don't buy that line for a second. Back then my seats were almost double they are now. They were cleaning up then.

Ultra & Proud
06-03-2015, 10:46 AM
I refuse to think that they are losing huge on this $20M salary. They could drop the roster budget to $5M or so, save $15M and by your numbers, break even. Operating costs will be the same whether we have 3 DPs or no DPs so all the expenditures minus the roster would be the same. Problem is that the incoming would be much different. The only reason we are okay now is due to our DPs. If you removed all 3 from our line up we would be were we usually are, basement. That happens and they can expect less seats sold, less advertising, less concessions, less everything. In that case then they may as well fold the team as what's the point in running a loss leader that will only have hope of being profitable if it has a budget roster.

TFC07
06-03-2015, 11:20 AM
According to Tim Leiweke, TFC projected to make $50 million in revenue this year and $60 million in revenue next year. So if Tim Leiweke is right (I am sure he's one who really knows the numbers unlike us on this forum), then TFC will be making money.

Ultra & Proud
06-03-2015, 12:46 PM
According to Tim Leiweke, TFC projected to make $50 million in revenue this year and $60 million in revenue next year. So if Tim Leiweke is right (I am sure he's one who really knows the numbers unlike us on this forum), then TFC will be making money.
Yeah this too and also, I think those statements by Lieweke (and by association MLSE) might be one of the very few times that a North American sports owner or CEO ever went on the record saying they make money. And lots of it. Usually it's all crying poor.

Qman
06-03-2015, 01:27 PM
Yeah this too and also, I think those statements by Lieweke (and by association MLSE) might be one of the very few times that a North American sports owner or CEO ever went on the record saying they make money. And lots of it. Usually it's all crying poor.


again with this $60m revenue figure. As stated numerous times in this forum, this is a TL TARGET not actual number.

The clubs primary source of revenue is ticket sales, which you say are $18m. I would say that is on high side, but even so. How, do you get to $50-$60m. Thats their primary source of revenue.


Here is an example with more realistic numbers:

2012
Revenue 25M - operating costs $22M = $3m profit

2015 (add some additional suite revenue plus $17m is salary)
Revenue 29M - operating costs $39M = $10m loss


ML$E is massively subsidizing this team. I haven't even thrown in $120m stadium project (the club has to pay the financing on that - $7-9m per year) and $100m on players (the club has to pay the financing on that: $5-7milion per year)


All i am saying is if the new guy doesn't like soccer, he is going to say "why aren't we going back to the old profitable model" and bye-bye high price DPs. And just be prepared for that scenerio because with TL gone it is quite likely.

mowe
06-03-2015, 02:17 PM
All i am saying is if the new guy doesn't like soccer, he is going to say "why aren't we going back to the old profitable model" and bye-bye high price DPs. And just be prepared for that scenerio because with TL gone it is quite likely.

TFC has a real chance to be Toronto's only winning team. You really think a new CEO is going to come in and blow that up just for the bottom line?

ensco
06-03-2015, 02:19 PM
Qman, I appreciate what you are doing. But I think it's hopeless.

There are so many posts in this thread quoting "information" and "analysis" and "go back, I proved this already" that it is disheartening.

I feel like I am being lectured about business by 12 year olds with lunch boxes that have Jedi Warrior decals on them, and no matter how many times they get called out, they keep coming back.

Qman
06-03-2015, 02:29 PM
TFC has a real chance to be Toronto's only winning team. You really think a new CEO is going to come in and blow that up just for the bottom line?

Have any of the other CEOs before TL cared about TFC --- god No.
The new CEO will only care about 2 things, fixing the Hockey team, and making sure the cash cow hockey club keeps plowing the cash. All the other properties are an afterthought.

We were just lucky to have TL for 3 years.
Sit back and really, really enjoy this time.
Saviour Giovinco's play.

... b/c in a couple years, back to being another DC United, RSL or philadelphia union.

Ultra & Proud
06-03-2015, 02:29 PM
Qman, I appreciate what you are doing. But I think it's hopeless.

There are so many posts in this thread quoting "information" and "analysis" and "go back, I proved this already" that it is disheartening.

I feel like I am being lectured about business by 12 year olds with lunch boxes that have Jedi Warrior decals on them, and no matter how many times they get called out, they keep coming back.
Um yeah. :facepalm:

Ultra & Proud
06-03-2015, 02:39 PM
Have any of the other CEOs before TL cared about TFC --- god No.
The new CEO will only care about 2 things, fixing the Hockey team, and making sure the cash cow hockey club keeps plowing the cash. All the other properties are an afterthought.

We were just lucky to have TL for 3 years.
Sit back and really, really enjoy this time.
Saviour Giovinco's play.

... b/c in a couple years, back to being another DC United or philadelphia union.

Honestly in the landscape of the MLSE major league sports teams $20M is not exactly a lot of money and not something where there will be big savings. That's why TFC was an afterthought to everyone before Lieweke; because it's small potatoes. It's almost like it was a quaint little novelty to have on the side when the real teams aren't tossing around the big bucks.

C.Ronaldo
06-03-2015, 03:02 PM
im a qualitative smell test kinda guy.

and the semll test says they are most probably losing money right now, but I believe they are in it for the long run.

THe long run has a lot of ifs though, IF champions league gets bigger/richer, IF friendlies sell big tickets, IF you develop and sell players, IF TV/SUM revenue comes in, and of course IF we win (and therefore rasie tic prices)

No investor would touch this scenario, but there must be something bigger to this. either cost sharing synergies make it really cheap to run this team, or someone's present value calculation came up with a BIG number.

You can also look it in a different way, going back to low paying DPs = zero fans. They may have unintentiatially and permanently raised the bar. They may have no choice in the matter

OgtheDim
06-03-2015, 03:21 PM
The long game may be dependent upon whether the forces behind the stringent salary cap can be overcome.

MLSE and the people behind OCSC and NYCFC are in the minority right now while the ascendancy seems to be with the Krafts and the Hunts. If this changes, and the league becomes a viable alternative for European and South American National team level talent, then MLS is a good long term investment.

I admit though, I don't see this happening. Every owner being brought in after this season is either an NFL type or a local investor - not the moneybags types. Although the cap could be raised significantly now, these types don't see the need.

TFC07
06-03-2015, 03:31 PM
again with this $60m revenue figure. As stated numerous times in this forum, this is a TL TARGET not actual number.

The clubs primary source of revenue is ticket sales, which you say are $18m. I would say that is on high side, but even so. How, do you get to $50-$60m. Thats their primary source of revenue.


Here is an example with more realistic numbers:

2012
Revenue 25M - operating costs $22M = $3m profit

2015 (add some additional suite revenue plus $17m is salary)
Revenue 29M - operating costs $39M = $10m loss


ML$E is massively subsidizing this team. I haven't even thrown in $120m stadium project (the club has to pay the financing on that - $7-9m per year) and $100m on players (the club has to pay the financing on that: $5-7milion per year)


All i am saying is if the new guy doesn't like soccer, he is going to say "why aren't we going back to the old profitable model" and bye-bye high price DPs. And just be prepared for that scenerio because with TL gone it is quite likely.

That's pretty big drop off if total revenue is somewhere between $25-$30 million and $50-$60 million. Obviously, Tim Leiweke has seen numbers and predict revenue to be north of $50 million (but if it isn't, then chances being less $30 million is quite slim since I highly doubt TL stupid enough to think revenue will double based on extra 8,000 plus suites).

Right now, no one on here have seen numbers and know how much money is coming from gates to sponsors this year. However, I am sure getting dividend from SUM plays a factor of TL claim of TFC being north $50 million in revenue this year. I believe teams get $10 million from their shares in SUM which will probably increase now thanks to new TV deal and other factors.

OgtheDim
06-03-2015, 03:43 PM
Qman, I appreciate what you are doing. But I think it's hopeless.

There are so many posts in this thread quoting "information" and "analysis" and "go back, I proved this already" that it is disheartening.

I feel like I am being lectured about business by 12 year olds with lunch boxes that have Jedi Warrior decals on them, and no matter how many times they get called out, they keep coming back.

Every single business I have been involved in has had tensions between competing visions of how to proceed. Doesn't make those who put forward different business cases less professional.

This, however, is a web forum. Unless somebody on here has experience running a sports franchise within a media conglomerate made up of two oligarchs and 3rd party with a desire for power without having to pay for it,

we are all amateurs. :)

ensco
06-03-2015, 04:41 PM
Every single business I have been involved in has had tensions between competing visions of how to proceed. Doesn't make those who put forward different business cases less professional.

This, however, is a web forum. Unless somebody on here has experience running a sports franchise within a media conglomerate made up of two oligarchs and 3rd party with a desire for power without having to pay for it,

we are all amateurs. :)

Og, that is not what I am talking about. There is often a wide spectrum in life about what is reasonable. But that is not what is largely going on here, or in that Argo to BMO thread (I brought the discussion here to avoid the craziness).

but I give up. It's a web forum, as you say.

ManUtd4ever
06-03-2015, 05:42 PM
Even if Leiweke is to be taken at his word regarding the club's projected revenues in the foreseeable future, which is an incredibly optimistic forecast, there is no chance that TFC will be remotely close to operating as a profitable individual entity in the short term. Typical operating costs aside, the organization has invested over 220 million dollars in the last 18 months in DPs and the stadium renovation project. Prior to that, MLSE made a substantial investment in the training complex at Downsview.

As others have mentioned, the reality is that the team is currently being subsidized by MLSE. I hope that the long term vision for the franchise and the league that ownership has bought into eventually comes to fruition, but even then, it will take a very long time for TFC to be profitable again, assuming that fan interest doesn't wane in the interim.

As supporters, we should just be thankful that Leiweke made TFC his priority during his tenure and convinced the MLSE board to spend like a drunken sailor. Hopefully, the club will be able to turn things around on the pitch and enjoy a sustained period of success for several years. At least that will maintain current attendance figures and potentially boost abysmal television ratings.

TFC07
06-03-2015, 07:30 PM
Even if Leiweke is to be taken at his word regarding the club's projected revenues in the foreseeable future, which is an incredibly optimistic forecast, there is no chance that TFC will be remotely close to operating as a profitable individual entity in the short term. Typical operating costs aside, the organization has invested over 220 million dollars in the last 18 months in DPs and the stadium renovation project. Prior to that, MLSE made a substantial investment in the training complex at Downsview.

As others have mentioned, the reality is that the team is currently being subsidized by MLSE. I hope that the long term vision for the franchise and the league that ownership has bought into eventually comes to fruition, but even then, it will take a very long time for TFC to be profitable again, assuming that fan interest doesn't wane in the interim.

As supporters, we should just be thankful that Leiweke made TFC his priority during his tenure and convinced the MLSE board to spend like a drunken sailor. Hopefully, the club will be able to turn things around on the pitch and enjoy a sustained period of success for several years. At least that will maintain current attendance figures and potentially boost abysmal television ratings.

BMO field investment was made so they can host OTHER (NON-TFC) events so they can make money. So it isn't fair to say MLSE investment into BMO field was solely on TFC alone. They will make their ROI when hosting Leafs, Grey Cup(?) and international soccer games.

As for $100 million claim, Defoe was sold for a profit (which cancel out his transfer fee paid to Spurs) while Micheal Bradley transfer fee was actually paid by the league. Giovinco came here without a transfer fee while Jozy came here part of Defoe deal. Gilberto will probably be sold eventually for a profit.

As for Training ground, Adidas paid some money to MLS clubs to set up their academy while Kia pays naming rights for training centre. So it isn't a lost cause (profit wise) when comes to training ground.

ag futbol
06-03-2015, 10:10 PM
I'm inclined to agree with ensco here. This conversation is all over the place and basic mistakes are inherent in a lot of arguments.

I like what C.Ronaldo wrote without relying on any numbers. It's very hard to believe this club is making money right now.

TravelPat
06-03-2015, 10:41 PM
According to this article in Canadian Press Leiweke was quoted as saying the team will not make money this year because of Giovinco being released early from Juventus so that they have to pay him for a full season - not just part of a season. He also says that they should make money in 2016.

http://insoccer.ca/2015/02/11/new-look-toronto-fc-ready-to-fight-and-win/


NOTES: Leiweke says the soccer club will not make money in 2015, due to Giovinco’s early arrival. The club should turn a profit in 2016

ensco
06-03-2015, 10:48 PM
im a qualitative smell test kinda guy.

and the semll test says they are most probably losing money right now, but I believe they are in it for the long run.

THe long run has a lot of ifs though, IF champions league gets bigger/richer, IF friendlies sell big tickets, IF you develop and sell players, IF TV/SUM revenue comes in, and of course IF we win (and therefore rasie tic prices)

No investor would touch this scenario, but there must be something bigger to this. either cost sharing synergies make it really cheap to run this team, or someone's present value calculation came up with a BIG number.

You can also look it in a different way, going back to low paying DPs = zero fans. They may have unintentiatially and permanently raised the bar. They may have no choice in the matter

ag futbol is right. This is a very good post.

I think this comes down to Leiweke's unusual personality. The DP thing really fits his conception of the universe, he came with that mindset from the Beckham thing, and he pursues that because it plays to his strengths (bigtime selling/spending/promoting). If the Leafs could sign DPs, boy this town would be on fire.

He steamrollers people, including his own bosses, to get these big splashy things done, so I'm not sure there is a big secret plan behind the DPs. When you are a hammer, everything is a nail.

Best guess: he did it because he could (and he knew the BMO reno was probably screwing over an already beaten down fan base...)

What happens when he is gone is truly anyone's guess.

Fort York Redcoat
06-04-2015, 07:23 AM
ag futbol is right. This is a very good post.

I think this comes down to Leiweke's unusual personality. The DP thing really fits his conception of the universe, he came with that mindset from the Beckham thing, and he pursues that because it plays to his strengths (bigtime selling/spending/promoting). If the Leafs could sign DPs, boy this town would be on fire.

He steamrollers people, including his own bosses, to get these big splashy things done, so I'm not sure there is a big secret plan behind the DPs. When you are a hammer, everything is a nail.

Best guess: he did it because he could (and he knew the BMO reno was probably screwing over an already beaten down fan base...)

What happens when he is gone is truly anyone's guess.

Raising the DP bar is a good way to put it. It's a shame but it must be said this town needs Defoes, Bradleys, Altidores and Sebas to sway an already cynical fanbase. A playoff would convince most to stick around another year and MAyyybe they could be patient to be impressed by an unknown quantity.

I straight up fear TLs replacement will be more NA oriented and just give his attention to where the money is. Which puts us just above the Marlies.

Beach_Red
06-04-2015, 08:17 AM
Raising the DP bar is a good way to put it. It's a shame but it must be said this town needs Defoes, Bradleys, Altidores and Sebas to sway an already cynical fanbase. A playoff would convince most to stick around another year and MAyyybe they could be patient to be impressed by an unknown quantity.

I straight up fear TLs replacement will be more NA oriented and just give his attention to where the money is. Which puts us just above the Marlies.

I disagree. The fanbase might have become cynical but it didn't start out that way. What the fanbase has always wanted is a well-run team from the top down but that's more difficult for upper-management to deliver. Much easier to throw money at the problem (that they created themselves).

Lots of NA sports teams are well-run, stable organizations. Just not ours. (but that may be changing which, of course, is why MLSE spent so much to get someone from the Red Wings, one of those well-run organizations).

Fort York Redcoat
06-04-2015, 08:46 AM
I disagree. The fanbase might have become cynical but it didn't start out that way. What the fanbase has always wanted is a well-run team from the top down but that's more difficult for upper-management to deliver. Much easier to throw money at the problem (that they created themselves).

Lots of NA sports teams are well-run, stable organizations. Just not ours. (but that may be changing which, of course, is why MLSE spent so much to get someone from the Red Wings, one of those well-run organizations).

Pretty much agreeing here. I'm saying we needed stars until the trust came back to the fanbase.

Ultra & Proud
06-04-2015, 08:49 AM
I disagree. The fanbase might have become cynical but it didn't start out that way. What the fanbase has always wanted is a well-run team from the top down but that's more difficult for upper-management to deliver. Much easier to throw money at the problem (that they created themselves).

Lots of NA sports teams are well-run, stable organizations. Just not ours. (but that may be changing which, of course, is why MLSE spent so much to get someone from the Red Wings, one of those well-run organizations).
Agree completely. I was totally happy in 2009/10 with Serioux, Cann, Nana, Vitti, Guevara, etc. We played decent and were in the mix with a squad of regular MLSers (well maybe not Vitti but he is no superstar DP type either). If we had kept on that trajectory instead of knee jerking from Preki to Winter and so on and having so many team/philosophy rebuilds, the fan base wouldn't be so jaded and we wouldn't need big names (at least not 3 of them anyway). But what's done is done. Management dug the hole and now we're neck deep in it until they earn their way out of it.

ensco
06-04-2015, 06:07 PM
Some pretty meaty stuff here. Surprised Bell blocked Collins, if true

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/two-years-in-mlses-leiweke-has-proud-legacy/

jloome
06-05-2015, 12:27 AM
Um yeah. :facepalm:

Evidently you aren't aware of his resume. I'm not aware of yours, but it'll have to be pretty heavy-hitting to suggest to me you can argue bottom line with Eugene.

jloome
06-05-2015, 12:33 AM
Og, that is not what I am talking about. There is often a wide spectrum in life about what is reasonable. But that is not what is largely going on here, or in that Argo to BMO thread (I brought the discussion here to avoid the craziness).

but I give up. It's a web forum, as you say.

I like the operating model where expenses gets reduced to "backroom costs." Their travel bill alone is close to a million dollars per season. Their insurance is enormous. The operating costs for BMO are enormous. They lose fifty percent of all revenue andparking to the city, and most of their ad revenue on the boards goes back to the league. Their last TV deal was worth less than $2 million per team. Then there's the actual capped salaries paid out on top of the DPs, adding another $5 mil per in costs.

Then there's an equivalent amount, in all likelihood, for staff and executive salaries. I've done the budget for just one small twenty-person division of a major company and shit just adds up and adds up.