PDA

View Full Version : Jason de Vos on Montreal's Failed Bid



Redcoe15
11-27-2008, 02:09 PM
Just read Jason de Vos' blog. He seems to be sympathetic towards Joey Saputo and his failed bid for an MLS team in Montreal.

Click here to read about it. (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/2008/11/tough_pill_but_right_decision.html)

JonO
11-27-2008, 02:17 PM
He lost me when he said "I know that Montreal apparently never offered $40 million US in the first place, but that is just splitting hairs." (emphais added) I am sorry - not meeting the asking price is more than just splitting hairs. It's stupid. I'm happy with the explanation that they didn't feel the price was worth it, but don't try and blame on the league not be happy with a "substantial" offer.

It's like trying to buy a house. If you feel the asking price is too much, by all means make a lower offer. But don't blame the seller if the offer isn't accepted.

ensco
11-27-2008, 02:30 PM
DeVos should be disclosing that he played for the Impact for 5 years. It's not exactly a trivial point in assessing his view of things.

Pigfynn
11-27-2008, 03:56 PM
Don't like DeVos...never have and his Impact bias was and is obvious when he is supposed to be doing TFC TV work.

He should sign on as an Impact commentator for next year...it's where his heart is.
He is a Toronto hater at heart.

:eek:

mighty_torontofc_2008
11-27-2008, 04:35 PM
Don't like DeVos...never have and his Impact bias was and is obvious when he is supposed to be doing TFC TV work.

He should sign on as an Impact commentator for next year...it's where his heart is. He is a Toronto hater at heart.


Exactly, he should not be doing TFC games at all....As far as the Impact goes may they enjoy the USL for the next decade.

Eastend
11-27-2008, 04:37 PM
Don't like DeVos...never have and his Impact bias was and is obvious when he is supposed to be doing TFC TV work.

He should sign on as an Impact commentator for next year...it's where his heart is. He is a Toronto hater at heart.

I agree.

ccopela
11-27-2008, 04:38 PM
Don't like DeVos...never have and his Impact bias was and is obvious when he is supposed to be doing TFC TV work.

He should sign on as an Impact commentator for next year...it's where his heart is. He is a Toronto hater at heart.

I am indifferent to De Vos as a commentator, but I don't think his job description is simply as a TFC commentator. He is a soccer commentator for CBC he does both Impact and TFC games. If he starts mentioning the Impact during a TFC broadcast that's a different story (unless they're playing each other) but i've never heard him mention the impact during an MLS broadcast.

Nazzer
11-27-2008, 04:58 PM
It's like trying to buy a house. If you feel the asking price is too much, by all means make a lower offer. But don't blame the seller if the offer isn't accepted.

Yes but when you make an offer on the house that has some very attractive bits to it like say sale date, and other things and the only sticking point is the price you generally make a counter offer or at least reaffirm that your asking price is the minimum and give the person a chance to respond.

johnmolinaro
11-27-2008, 05:05 PM
I am indifferent to De Vos as a commentator, but I don't think his job description is simply as a TFC commentator. He is a soccer commentator for CBC he does both Impact and TFC games. If he starts mentioning the Impact during a TFC broadcast that's a different story (unless they're playing each other) but i've never heard him mention the impact during an MLS broadcast.

Exactly. Like Nigel, he is employed as a general soccer commentator for CBC. And I can attest to the fact, having talked to Jason dozens of times, that he's not a "Toronto hater."

John

JonO
11-27-2008, 05:14 PM
Yes but when you make an offer on the house that has some very attractive bits to it like say sale date, and other things and the only sticking point is the price you generally make a counter offer or at least reaffirm that your asking price is the minimum and give the person a chance to respond.
Not if there are other bidders on the house...

Pigfynn
11-27-2008, 05:27 PM
Ok John, maybe not a Toronto hater. Too harsh a term...I understand.

How about..Impact supporter? Which in my book makes him a person that has interests contrary to that of TFC.

So when the Everton fan is doing commentary for the Liverpool match and he says something negative about Liverpool, what do the Pool fans think?

Unless you know he is not an Impact supporter.

Broadview
11-27-2008, 05:35 PM
He does say this much...

"The exclusion of Montreal is certainly a bitter pill for Canadian football fans to swallow. Like everyone else, I was licking my lips in anticipation of an Impact-TFC derby. Two of my favourite teams going head to head - what could be better? Fans of both teams pretty much despise each other, and the ready-made rivalry was something that everyone saw as a huge mark in Montreal’s favour."

I'm sort of happy Montreal didn't get in. Playing each other four times a year could dilute the rivalry. Now the Canadian Championship match ups will be even more special.

If Ottawa really did blow away the commish et al and gets a team, there's your short road trip right there with nearly equally obnoxious sports fans as well.

Pigfynn
11-27-2008, 05:38 PM
Two of my favourite teams going head to head - what could be better?

How can you support both? Simple, you can't.

Besides, it sounds like more of a case of not biting the hand that feeds.

johnmolinaro
11-27-2008, 05:50 PM
Ok John, maybe not a Toronto hater. Too harsh a term...I understand.

How about..Impact supporter? Which in my book makes him a person that has interests contrary to that of TFC.

So when the Everton fan is doing commentary for the Liverpool match and he says something negative about Liverpool, what do the Pool fans think?

Unless you know he is not an Impact supporter.

Yes, he's an Impact supporter, but he's also a supporter of Toronto FC.

As far as I can recall, he's never said anything negative about Toronto FC - he's been critical of the way they play sometimes, but I think that's part of the job of being a colour commentator.

And I don't think he's mentioned the Impact when doing a Toronto FC game (unless they're playing the Impact).

Bottom line is this: He's a supporter of Canadian soccer and all Canadian clubs, and even though he played for Montreal, he still supports Toronto FC, and should Ottawa and/or Vancouver MLS clubs, he would support them, as well.

John

Pigfynn
11-27-2008, 05:57 PM
Yes, he's an Impact supporter, but he's also a supporter of Toronto FC.

As far as I can recall, he's never said anything negative about Toronto FC - he's been critical of the way they play sometimes, but I think that's part of the job of being a colour commentator.

And I don't think he's mentioned the Impact when doing a Toronto FC game (unless they're playing the Impact).

Bottom line is this: He's a supporter of Canadian soccer and all Canadian clubs, and even though he played for Montreal, he still supports Toronto FC, and should Ottawa and/or Vancouver MLS clubs, he would support them, as well.





John

:noidea::puke:

Seriously though, I get what you're saying...if only I could be so objective I would agree about the whole happy Canadian soccer teams all living together in prosperity.

Sadly I cannot.

VPjr
11-27-2008, 06:01 PM
some of you guys are irrational and paranoid if you think Jason DeVos is a Toronto hater.

As for his blog comments, there is nothing much new in there. Saputo/Gillett had their reasons for lowballing and it cost them being considered for a franchise now (and possibly in the future).

Jason is wrong about 1 statement in his blog. I have it on incredibly good authority that, while no money has been deposited in MLS coffers yet, there are groups who are ready to pay the $40 million expansion fee RIGHT NOW. The question I've got is whether Barca Miami (or what ever they'll be called) is willing to pay full pop. I know of 2 other groups that are ready and willing.

Ossington Mental Youth
11-27-2008, 06:15 PM
ill guess the other two are Ottawa and Vancouver :)

Question is whether the MLS values the concept of BarcaMiami over two teams thatll pay. I think at this point (especially now with Montreal out) they are just focused on US teams as well as teams in 'valuable markets' like the south, regardless of how they will actually do. Sort of a regression from what everyone thought they figured out when TFC did so well. I would be happy (if they only add US teams) to see Portland in there, as well as St Louis. Miami and Atlanta are jokes, regardless of whos backing them.

rocker
11-27-2008, 06:18 PM
I know of 2 other groups that are ready and willing.

Is Vancouver one?? come on, give us the scoop! :)

rocker
11-27-2008, 06:24 PM
One question I have about Saputo that just struck me...
we all know what Saputo has done for the Impact, and thus soccer in Quebec. Gotta praise that. But what has Saputo done for the USL, other than being a member of it and winning its tournaments?
At least in MLS, revenue is shared, so you can say that TFC supports Kansas City... and the owners in MLS seem keen on growing the whole league, from the best team to the worst team. "All for One".

But the Impact seem simply focused on themselves: "What's in it for me?" would be their motto.
The Impact's attitude is precisely not what works in MLS. If teams started talking like that, they'd essentially be undermining the whole system that has allowed MLS to succeed.

Ossington Mental Youth
11-27-2008, 06:31 PM
God i hate those cunts

Pigfynn
11-27-2008, 08:22 PM
God i hate those cunts


as do I

TFCREDNWHITE
11-27-2008, 09:43 PM
I'll tell you guys this much.....Don Garber and the "MLS" are stupid for turning down Montreals $45 million(Canadian) because it's him(Garber) that is splitting hairs! He might lose 3-4 million USD on the front end of the bid, but he'll make 500 million over the next 20 years with Montreal, we all know that Montreal was a solid bid with solid base and structure!

Basically Garber is being short sighted for thinking he's being "short-changed" that might be the case upfront, but not when you look at it over the next 3-5 years!!

VPjr
11-27-2008, 09:54 PM
I'll tell you guys this much.....Don Garber and the "MLS" are stupid for turning down Montreals $45 million(Canadian) because it's him(Garber) that is splitting hairs! He might lose 3-4 million USD on the front end of the bid, but he'll make 500 million over the next 20 years with Montreal, we all know that Montreal was a solid bid with solid base and structure!



are you suggesting Montreal Impact will produce $25 million per year in net profit annually for the next 20 years?

If that is the case, TFC is doing something wrong. they're not making that kind of profit, that's for sure.

Montreal would have been a good MLS club but they didn't want to pay the arbitrary price MLS has set to join his exclusive club. It sucks but c'est la vie

troy1982
11-27-2008, 10:24 PM
I'll tell you guys this much.....Don Garber and the "MLS" are stupid for turning down Montreals $45 million(Canadian) because it's him(Garber) that is splitting hairs! He might lose 3-4 million USD on the front end of the bid, but he'll make 500 million over the next 20 years with Montreal, we all know that Montreal was a solid bid with solid base and structure!

Basically Garber is being short sighted for thinking he's being "short-changed" that might be the case upfront, but not when you look at it over the next 3-5 years!!

Just to clarify it is 45 million (cdn) for the fee and stadium upgrade. The acutual fee Joey was planning to pay was 25 million (cdn). So he was actuall short about 25 million (usd) on his bid.

mighty_torontofc_2008
11-27-2008, 11:20 PM
I'll tell you guys this much.....Don Garber and the "MLS" are stupid for turning down Montreals $45 million(Canadian) because it's him(Garber) that is splitting hairs! He might lose 3-4 million USD on the front end of the bid, but he'll make 500 million over the next 20 years with Montreal, we all know that Montreal was a solid bid with solid base and structure!

Basically Garber is being short sighted for thinking he's being "short-changed" that might be the case upfront, but not when you look at it over the next 3-5 years!!


Montreal cant make their own rules...if you want in pay the expansion
fee like all the others trying or stay away...like i have said earlier, Montreal willl NOT be missed by MLS. Lets see what Saputo/Gillete will have to pay for a fee in 5-10 years time...50-60 million? Montreal
blew their chance..

Cashcleaner
11-27-2008, 11:40 PM
I'll tell you guys this much.....Don Garber and the "MLS" are stupid for turning down Montreals $45 million(Canadian) because it's him(Garber) that is splitting hairs! He might lose 3-4 million USD on the front end of the bid, but he'll make 500 million over the next 20 years with Montreal, we all know that Montreal was a solid bid with solid base and structure!

Basically Garber is being short sighted for thinking he's being "short-changed" that might be the case upfront, but not when you look at it over the next 3-5 years!!

That's the kicker! Garber is looking at the short term issue. So what if Montreal isn't fronting the full $40 million?! Both the team and the league will be raking in the cash in a few short years because the demand there is so great!

Reminds me of the documentary The Corporation. Garber is only interested in making the $40 million for this year. It doesn't matter if the money is coming from cities that may not support a team at any good level, and may actually cost us in the long run. It's all about getting the money now and worrying about the problems later.

Redcoe15
11-28-2008, 01:53 AM
That's the kicker! Garber is looking at the short term issue. So what if Montreal isn't fronting the full $40 million?! Both the team and the league will be raking in the cash in a few short years because the demand there is so great!

Reminds me of the documentary The Corporation. Garber is only interested in making the $40 million for this year. It doesn't matter if the money is coming from cities that may not support a team at any good level, and may actually cost us in the long run. It's all about getting the money now and worrying about the problems later.
Who does THAT remind you of? Hint: initials, GB. :D

Steve
11-28-2008, 09:30 AM
That's the kicker! Garber is looking at the short term issue. So what if Montreal isn't fronting the full $40 million?! Both the team and the league will be raking in the cash in a few short years because the demand there is so great!

Reminds me of the documentary The Corporation. Garber is only interested in making the $40 million for this year. It doesn't matter if the money is coming from cities that may not support a team at any good level, and may actually cost us in the long run. It's all about getting the money now and worrying about the problems later.

We keep saying the demand there is so great... but what do we really have to back that up? Yes, they get pretty good crowds to USL games, but his marketing strategy is based on cheap tickets, and family outings. He said right out that he wanted to keep tickets affordable so families of 4 could go to a game. Do you really think he would keep the same people (and more) coming to games if the ticket prices went up to MLS levels? If he wanted a crowd more like Toronto's, he would pretty much have to start from scratch with his marketing, and there's really no guaruntee that would bring in the number of people they want.

Personally, I think Vancouver has a better potential soccer base than Montreal does. Sure, they're not close enough to us for a road trip, but for pure support, I think they would be the more solid choice for MLS (plus, they are willing to put forward the full fee, and would have a great triangle with Seattle and potentially Portland).

Wooster_TFC
11-28-2008, 09:31 AM
Yes but when you make an offer on the house that has some very attractive bits to it like say sale date, and other things and the only sticking point is the price you generally make a counter offer or at least reaffirm that your asking price is the minimum and give the person a chance to respond.

Except for the fact that they did. Montreal came in with a CDN $43 million bid, then were told that they needed to modify their bid based on a list of criteria, at which point they re-bid with a CDN $45 million bid (which was both the expansion fee and the cost for stadium upgrades).

MLS called Montreal a couple days before the MLS Final and told them that the expansion fee was USD $40 million. Saputo told them that his bid remained, so they just decided to decline it. It's the way things work when you have multiple bidders. Why bother screwing around with a small fish, especially when they are offering half your asking price, and have told you they won't budge. Decline and move on.

Miko
11-28-2008, 09:51 AM
Except for the fact that they did. Montreal came in with a CDN $43 million bid, then were told that they needed to modify their bid based on a list of criteria, at which point they re-bid with a CDN $45 million bid (which was both the expansion fee and the cost for stadium upgrades).

MLS called Montreal a couple days before the MLS Final and told them that the expansion fee was USD $40 million. Saputo told them that his bid remained, so they just decided to decline it. It's the way things work when you have multiple bidders. Why bother screwing around with a small fish, especially when they are offering half your asking price, and have told you they won't budge. Decline and move on.


Beyond that, the TFC $10M bid didn't include BMO - if it did, the league would have owed us money.

The franchise fee is the franchise fee and everything else is your responsibility. Works this way in the NFL, the NHL, etc. The Houston Texans paid $700M just to join the NFL - the new stadium, etc was paid on top of that.

The best definition of a franchise fee I have seen is this - "a franchise fee is nothing more than the lease down payment on use of a proven brand."

It seems to me that Garber tried to save Montreal some embarrassment here.

Montreal thought they could lowball MLS because everyone (the Impact especially) believed MLS needed Montreal.

Garber, instead of saying that Montreal tried to do this, gave Montreal the option of saying they pulled out allowing them the chance to say it wasn't the right time. They then could have kept everything behind closed doors and figured out something for the nextround of expansion.

Instead, Saputo tells everyone the bid was declined, he now has to explain why and at the same time, Garber has to backtrack and say the bid wasn't up to the standard required.

olegunnar
11-28-2008, 10:04 AM
We keep saying the demand there is so great... but what do we really have to back that up? Yes, they get pretty good crowds to USL games, but his marketing strategy is based on cheap tickets, and family outings. He said right out that he wanted to keep tickets affordable so families of 4 could go to a game. Do you really think he would keep the same people (and more) coming to games if the ticket prices went up to MLS levels? If he wanted a crowd more like Toronto's, he would pretty much have to start from scratch with his marketing, and there's really no guaruntee that would bring in the number of people they want.


Exactly.
I'm not saying we're the be all and end of all supporters but how can anyone say that Montreal is a guaranteed sell.

They brought barely 1 bus here. It was a cup final/derby/beat the MLS team in their home park event. Less than 1 Bus?
They let the hondurans buy all the CMNT tickets
Their attendance is propped up by freebies.

We laugh at the yellow football team and their support, yet laud similar support in Montreal?

I wonder if people are so focused on a Montreal Toronto derby that they're willing to delude themselves about the facts.

Cashcleaner
11-28-2008, 03:44 PM
^ Perhaps we are letting emotions get in the way of reason here. But would we be seeing more buses from the theoretical Ottawa fans? And how many Vancouverites made it out this way last year of the NCC match at BMO?

Beach_Red
11-28-2008, 04:06 PM
^ Perhaps we are letting emotions get in the way of reason here. But would we be seeing more buses from the theoretical Ottawa fans? And how many Vancouverites made it out this way last year of the NCC match at BMO?

Yes, there is the potential we may see a lot of buses from Ottawa. The truth is, really, Montreal just doesn't give a shit about Toronto.

Now, Ottawa could really grow to hate us as much as we'll hate them.

And, dare to dream, if Ottawa and Vancouver get into MLS then there'll be 4 teams in the Canadian Championships.

I wonder if getting into the Canadian Championship and possibly the Champions League would be enough incentive for a couple more Canadian cities to go after USL teams - Edmonton, maybe?

olegunnar
11-28-2008, 04:13 PM
^ Perhaps we are letting emotions get in the way of reason here. But would we be seeing more buses from the theoretical Ottawa fans? And how many Vancouverites made it out this way last year of the NCC match at BMO?

I'm about to go home for the weekend, so this will be a drive by post.

I have no idea what Ottawa and Vancouver have to do with anything relating to Montreal's bid.

I don't think that anyone is qualifying Ottawa's or Vancouver's or anyone's expansion bid for that matter based on support. So that's not what I was talking about.

I was talking about some people's opinion that Montreal was a no brainer and that they'd be a successful MLS franchise off the pitch. That's what I was speaking to and I was speaking about Montreal specifically. Not Ottawa, not Vancouver.

I think that the new stadium and "wealthy" owners, hid a lot of flaws in the Montreal situation. That's not to say that the other bids do not have flaws, I'm not comparing.

I would love to have a team closer to us than Columbus. Actually Boston/NY or Chicago since I'm never going back to Columbus.

However if I was commissioner, my preference for expansion would be Portland and Montreal now...Miami and Vancouver in the next phase and St Louis being awarded the KC franchise.

So I'm not anti-Montreal in terms of expansion, but that said, I'm not going to delude myself into think that Montreal's bid was too good to be true and so good in fact that MLS had to break it's rules and give Montreal special treatment.

That's the crux of this. Slowly people are realizing Montreal didn't have a complete bid, and now the argument is Montreal's bid was sooo good, MLS should have bent the rules. I take issue with the claim that Montreal's bid was that good. Good, very good, but not rule breakingly good.

Cashcleaner
11-28-2008, 04:15 PM
^^ That would be pretty cool, now that you've mentioned it.

MLS: Toronto, Ottawa, Van City

USL: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal

Beach_Red
11-28-2008, 04:21 PM
^ That would be pretty cool, now that you've mentioned it.

MLS: Toronto, Ottawa, Van City

USL: Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal

Dare to dream.

Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec City, Halifax, London. Hell, even Moncton is building a 10,000 stadium which would be ideal for USL.

Cambridge_Red
11-28-2008, 04:48 PM
I prefer an unbias commentator to be honest. Devos is miles better than Forrest, bless him.

jloome
11-28-2008, 05:29 PM
After the last management fuck up, Edmonton won't be in theUSL again for awhile, I imagine. The Aviators were collosally screwed up from day one, although the city has a long history of good support (routinely getting 20,000-plus for nats games and averaging over 10,000 in the NASL).

Eventually, I still want a Canadian league. It's very doable, as soon as the broader sports public gets used to the concept that not every city can have a top-tier team and as soon as the CSA/organizational hierachy in Canada wakes the fuck up to the obvious issues and resolves them (which also shouldn't be nearly as hard as it's made out to be.)

jloome
11-28-2008, 05:31 PM
I'm about to go home for the weekend, so this will be a drive by post.

I have no idea what Ottawa and Vancouver have to do with anything relating to Montreal's bid.

I don't think that anyone is qualifying Ottawa's or Vancouver's or anyone's expansion bid for that matter based on support. So that's not what I was talking about.

I was talking about some people's opinion that Montreal was a no brainer and that they'd be a successful MLS franchise off the pitch. That's what I was speaking to and I was speaking about Montreal specifically. Not Ottawa, not Vancouver.

I think that the new stadium and "wealthy" owners, hid a lot of flaws in the Montreal situation. That's not to say that the other bids do not have flaws, I'm not comparing.

I would love to have a team closer to us than Columbus. Actually Boston/NY or Chicago since I'm never going back to Columbus.

However if I was commissioner, my preference for expansion would be Portland and Montreal now...Miami and Vancouver in the next phase and St Louis being awarded the KC franchise.

So I'm not anti-Montreal in terms of expansion, but that said, I'm not going to delude myself into think that Montreal's bid was too good to be true and so good in fact that MLS had to break it's rules and give Montreal special treatment.

That's the crux of this. Slowly people are realizing Montreal didn't have a complete bid, and now the argument is Montreal's bid was sooo good, MLS should have bent the rules. I take issue with the claim that Montreal's bid was that good. Good, very good, but not rule breakingly good.

Somewhat true. They were hidden in that people either weren't paying attention or didn't want to see them. But I'm sure I'm not the only person who has commented on this board about reports the Impact were giving away more than half their seats, ratioanalizing them as "purchased" because they went to various government ministries and other financial supporters.

Take 6,000 to 7,000 free tickets away from that home crowd and Columbus looks good by comparison.

Ossington Mental Youth
11-28-2008, 05:34 PM
KCs not going to fold, just ok'd a stadium, even if it will always be empty

Beach_Red
11-28-2008, 06:02 PM
After the last management fuck up, Edmonton won't be in theUSL again for awhile, I imagine. The Aviators were collosally screwed up from day one, although the city has a long history of good support (routinely getting 20,000-plus for nats games and averaging over 10,000 in the NASL).

Eventually, I still want a Canadian league. It's very doable, as soon as the broader sports public gets used to the concept that not every city can have a top-tier team and as soon as the CSA/organizational hierachy in Canada wakes the fuck up to the obvious issues and resolves them (which also shouldn't be nearly as hard as it's made out to be.)

Yes, Edmonton has always shown good support. I'd like to see a Canadian league, too, and it's very doable.

As I understand it, MLS was formed after the US got the World Cup in '96 so they would have domestic league. But the USL has been around longer, so why didn't that count as a domestic league? And why was the MLS formed with its weird rules if it was part of the World Cup being awarded and didn't use the same rules as every other league?

ensco
11-28-2008, 06:47 PM
KCs not going to fold, just ok'd a stadium, even if it will always be empty

They'll do much better in that stadium, you watch. Better than Dallas and Denver for sure. That's a way better soccer town than is represented on these boards.

The hopeless cases are Columbus and Chivas.

jloome
11-28-2008, 08:18 PM
They'll do much better in that stadium, you watch. Better than Dallas and Denver for sure. That's a way better soccer town than is represented on these boards.

The hopeless cases are Columbus and Chivas.

Ensco, I'm not being facetious, but where does this come from? My understanding is the Hunts have struggled for years to get good turnouts; doesn't the conventional wisdom suggest the SSS have little to do with improved turnouts?

You're definitely right on Columbus and Chivas. The latter should be moved, as it hasn't engaged the Mexican-American community. Amazingly, if you spend any time on Ives Galarcep's blog or Big Soccer, there are lots of MLS fans who think Columbus has good support.

ensco
11-28-2008, 08:50 PM
Ensco, I'm not being facetious, but where does this come from? My understanding is the Hunts have struggled for years to get good turnouts; doesn't the conventional wisdom suggest the SSS have little to do with improved turnouts?


Just a hunch. I know KC better than most on this board, so partly I'm rooting for that market a bit (I've done lots of business there).....two reasons I think it will work

1) I think Arrowhead was such a joke that it held back the interest in the team totally. Bannister is a good central location, and KC isn't that big.
2) youth soccer is huge, way bigger than here, in KC (and in St Louis, btw)

This SSS thing has been poorly executed and is misunderstood, I think. The Chicago, Dallas and Denver experiences have shown that an SSS in the middle of nowhere, is a nice stadium in the middle of nowhere. I'm a bit worried about red Bull Park not working, for this reason.

Having said that, I am really shocked at how much the Hoops are truly sucking in Dallas. They are an abject failure. The Stars are way higher on people's list, for instance they get really great coverage in the Morning News there, even during the summer there are much more column inches for them than there are for FC Dallas, which is incredible.

Pachuco
11-29-2008, 01:23 AM
Yes but when you make an offer on the house that has some very attractive bits to it like say sale date, and other things and the only sticking point is the price you generally make a counter offer or at least reaffirm that your asking price is the minimum and give the person a chance to respond.

Counter offers don't happen when there are multiple bids, not even in real estate. There is nothing wrong with (and it's quite normal) what MLS did.

Devos can disagree all he wants about franchise fees being ridicolously high. At the end of the day, if you don't think Montreal should pay that price then step aside and watch as they'll be paying more in 5 years. This league has proven that it's growing and that there is demand and interest from other cities.

Oldtimer
11-29-2008, 06:15 AM
Counter offers don't happen when there are multiple bids, not even in real estate. There is nothing wrong with (and it's quite normal) what MLS did.

Devos can disagree all he wants about franchise fees being ridicolously high. At the end of the day, if you don't think Montreal should pay that price then step aside and watch as they'll be paying more in 5 years. This league has proven that it's growing and that there is demand and interest from other cities.

So true. I remember reading that the Buffalo Bills owner bought his franchise for something like $5k in the 1950's before the NFL was popular. Now an NFL franchise is worth $900 million.

I doubt MLS will appreciate as much as the NFL, but it wouldn't be surprising if in a few years franchises are going for $100 million US.

rocker
11-29-2008, 12:31 PM
ya this is the key point about the franchise fee. Everyone who agrees with saputo says that "well, it's not worth $40mil when the league is losing money". But I bet the AFL/NFL were losing money when franchises went for peanuts in the 1950s.

The fact is, sports franchises in credible leagues are very very rare. they're more rare than diamonds. Diamonds are just pieces of rock, inherently worth nothing at all, but they have value in the market and culturally... Same with sports franchises. The money they make in revenues is irrelevant, cuz they are rare and culturally they are very important to our society. If people are willing to pay $1000 for a diamond ring or $40mil for a franchise, it's got nothing to do with inherent value but what people THINK they are worth as scarce commodities.

Saputo thinks it's worth less but from what I've seen in sports franchise values, rarely do they go down over time. as well, I can't think of any franchise relocations in MLS in its history. Am I wrong? The chances of Montreal grabbing a franchise in a relocation are very very slim. If teams continue to survive in places like KC and Columbus, there won't be any relocation opportunities.
Merger with the USL? maybe... but it would have happened by now if it was gonna happen. MLS doesn't need to merge anymore since the USL isn't a strong competitor and doesn't exist in any markets MLS can't already buy into through expansion.