Today's News,Thursday,Mar.18

[denime]

Mornin'


Ten Man Reds Lose To D.C.


TFC falls at Carolina Challenge


Toronto FC continue to flounder in preseason


Grill Room: TFC 2010 season preview



SUNSHINE

[sidvan]

Mornin'. Other than the team fighting each other nothing to get excited about.

[scooter]

mornin d

[Eastend]

I watched the first half and I thought our defensive play showed promise yesterday...keeping possesion was another story. After Sanyang went out we did play the chasing game though.

As for the alleged dust up, I can see tensions rising....new coach, new strategy, maybe some things not working or going as each side would like....plus a looming strike that would ruin this league.....

[Section 117]

http://www.tribalfootball.com/ex-new...onto-fc-708741

Found a story stating ex Newcastle defender Olivier Bernard is training with TFC on trial

[Shaughno]

^^ Weird, I thought that was a rumor last year??

[I_AM_CANADIAN]

Something is rotten in the state of South Carolina.

[Shaughno]

I heard Saric was out with a knock, hence not being on the bench but might be fit for Saturday... who knows though.

[jabbronies]

http://www.tribalfootball.com/ex-new...onto-fc-708741

Found a story stating ex Newcastle defender Olivier Bernard is training with TFC on trial

This is on his wiki:
He trained with Toronto FC to keep his fitness up in June 2008, mainly because he is friends with former Toronto midfielder Laurent Robert.[6]

[CretanBull]

MLS Profits in Light of Ownerships’ Claims

http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com...ds-filing/8424

[Roogsy]

Interesting:

Regardless, things look much better for MLS clubs if you consider these fees. With them and the SUM number, the potentially profitable clubs expands to include Colorado and Kansas City – 11 of the 15 clubs that played last season.
This is also within the context of an economic downturn, the premise of Dave’s column. If you buy into that premise, the 2009 numbers could be considered near the bottom of the range of outcomes for an otherwise growing league.

Like I said...the owners are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel...so should the players.

At the end of the day, each side is going to twist the numbers in their favour. So I would refrain from being completely sympathetic to one side over the other.

[Whoop]

I just want to hear what the players demands are.

In the PR game you figured if they announced what their demands were they would get more public support. As it is all you're hearing is from the owners and of course they're going to say "we're losing money!"

I figure the player demands are reasonable... yet why not get public opinion on your side?

[Whoop]

Peter Wilt's proposal...

http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2010/0...-labor-strife/

[zamperina]

Here is the CBC Broadcast Schedule for TFC...

2010 MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER ON CBC BROADCAST SCHEDULE

(Schedule subject to change)

All games available live and on-demand on CBCSports.ca

CBC TELEVISION (All events are live)
Sun. Apr. 25 2 p.m. ET Seattle Sounders FC @ Toronto FC

Sat. May 8 3:30 p.m. ET Chicago Fire @ Toronto FC

Sat. May 22 3:30 p.m. ET New England Revolution @ Toronto FC

Sat. June 5 3:30 p.m. ET Kansas City Wizards @ Toronto FC

Sat. July 10 12 p.m. ET Popsicle Soccer Day in Canada:
Colorado Rapids @ Toronto FC

Sat. July 17 3:30 p.m. ET Toronto FC @ Philadelphia Union

Sat. July 24 4 p.m. ET FC Dallas @ Toronto FC

Sat. Aug. 7 3:30 p.m. ET Chivas USA @ Toronto FC

Sat. Aug. 21 1 p.m. ET New York Red Bulls @ Toronto FC

Sat. Sept. 11 3:30 p.m. ET DC United @ Toronto FC

Sat. Sept. 25 3:30 p.m. ET San Jose Earthquakes @ Toronto FC

Sat. Oct. 2 3:30 p.m. ET Toronto FC @ Seattle Sounders

Sat. Oct. 16 3:30 p.m. ET Columbus Crew @ Toronto FC

bold (All events are live)
Sun. Apr. 25 2 p.m. ET Seattle Sounders FC @ Toronto FC

[olegunnar]

Interesting:



Like I said...the owners are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel...so should the players.

At the end of the day, each side is going to twist the numbers in their favour. So I would refrain from being completely sympathetic to one side over the other.

I don't think SUM and expansion fees are relevant to the profitability discussion as it relates to the CBA.

First off, one time payments, like expansion fees, are just that...a one time payment. So you can cook the books...team losing money...gets a windfall...then suddenly it's making money...what then about the next year when that windfall isn't there? Are the owners going to have to start relying on expansion fees to make money?

Also with SUM, that has nothing to do with the day to day operations of the team, it's an unrelated business entity. Just because MLS is making money by promoting and producing Gold Cup games and World Cup qualifiers etc., doesn't mean you can translate that money to the operations side (mls league) of things. The players are on the day to day side of things, not the side investments. If Honda wins an F1 title, I don't think the sales staff at your local dealership is going to be expecting a pay raise. Or if Canoe restaurant has a banner year I don't think the peeps at Auberge de Pommier will expect a pay raise. Same company, different businesses.

[Boondaddy]

LOL Popsicle Soccer Day in Canada....still a childs game in this country!

[Roogsy]

I don't think SUM and expansion fees are relevant to the profitability discussion as it relates to the CBA.

First off, one time payments, like expansion fees, are just that...a one time payment. So you can cook the books...team losing money...gets a windfall...then suddenly it's making money...what then about the next year when that windfall isn't there? Are the owners going to have to start relying on expansion fees to make money?

I disagree. These one-time payments are not windfalls that should be ignored since they are a product of the league's expansion and are a result of the product put on the pitch, meaning the players. Owners are crying poor but are getting 2mill here and 2mill there and it shouldn't be considered in negotiations with the players? On what basis, that the money only comes one time? even that isn't true...since the money comes in each time a new team is created. Meaning it's happened several times, not to mention the increased value of each team already in the league as a result of the higher franchise fee. For example, if MLSE were to sell TFC, despite having only had to pay a $10mill franchise fee, they'd now get a minimum of $40mill. That's profit. That should be considered in contract negotiations.

Also with SUM, that has nothing to do with the day to day operations of the team, it's an unrelated business entity. Just because MLS is making money by promoting and producing Gold Cup games and World Cup qualifiers etc., doesn't mean you can translate that money to the operations side (mls league) of things. The players are on the day to day side of things, not the side investments. If Honda wins an F1 title, I don't think the sales staff at your local dealership is going to be expecting a pay raise. Or if Canoe restaurant has a banner year I don't think the peeps at Auberge de Pommier will expect a pay raise. Same company, different businesses.

It's a separate (I completely disagree with calling it an "unrelated business entity") because that is how the owners have structured it for tax reasons. Period. Are they marketing a different sport? Different athletes? A completely different business line? Is someone other than the franchise owners getting that money? No. Therefore it is related and should be considered in contract negotiations.

[Whoop]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

But couldn't you argue that a team's profitability could be measured by the worth of the franchise - how much the team would sell for?

I know that's a very simplistic view of the situation.

[Whoop]

How many more times will MLS expand and get expansion fees? At some point, expansion fee money - despite the owners' best wishes a la NHL - will dry up.

[Stouffville_RPB]

I'm looking at the release of the television schedule as a bright spot. Hopefully this means that things are moving along.

I don't care what either side wants as long as I get what I want. A season where the only stoppage is because of a little tournament in Africa.

[CretanBull]

SUM is kind of complicated because they do things that fall outside of the MLS as well - like putting on friendlies for the Mexican National Team in America.

[olegunnar]

It's a separate (I completely disagree with calling it an "unrelated business entity") because that is how the owners have structured it for tax reasons. Period. Are they marketing a different sport? Different athletes? A completely different business line? Is someone other than the franchise owners getting that money? No. Therefore it is related and should be considered in contract negotiations.

If you and your dept have a good year...would that mean that branch tellers could argue for a raise/cut of the revenue you brought in?


To me I think that the players can argue for a cut of the moneys they bring in. To me that's the day to day OPs and merch sales. It's not relevant or right in my opinion for them to try and get a cut of the money the league brings in due to it's own business savy.

In my opinion. The only reason there is a MLS today is because of that business savy. I sincerely doubt that the soccer league side has made any annual profits ever. By that I mean the league as a whole. From Tampa Bay Mutiny to columbus crew to Toronto FC over that past 15 years.

[Roogsy]

How many more times will MLS expand and get expansion fees? At some point, expansion fee money - despite the owners' best wishes a la NHL - will dry up.

Absolutely. That's not the argument. The argument here is that it shouldn't count.

Why not?

The owners here are crying poor. That they have endured losses over the years. But then we aren't supposed to apply incoming fees from new franchises as a way to offset those losses? Why not?

Like I mentioned a company like MLSE paid 10mill for a franchise which is now worth well over 40mill. How is it going to cry poor?

Even a franchise like Dallas that doesn't make money and likely loses money. If they have sustained (I don't know figures, I am just making stuff up) 20mill in losses over the years but get 6mill back in franchise fees, not to mention the increased value of the franchise goes from whatever they paid initially (lets say 5mill) to the now quoted 40mill franchise fee...as an operation they are actually IN THE BLACK as opposed to having taken losses.

The only way you will convince me that the owners truly are in the poor house is if someone can show me that despite the higher franchise value, the franchise fee money coming in and the SUM money, owners are still taking losses in the tens of millions.

You ask players why they don't state their case to get the public on their side...why don't the owners come out with accurate numbers for all operations and show us the kind of losses they are supposedly taking and REALLY prove their case of being "poor"?

[Roogsy]

If you and your dept have a good year...would that mean that branch tellers could argue for a raise/cut of the revenue you brought in?


To me I think that the players can argue for a cut of the moneys they bring in. To me that's the day to day OPs and merch sales. It's not relevant or right in my opinion for them to try and get a cut of the money the league brings in due to it's own business savy.

In my opinion. The only reason there is a MLS is because of that business savy. I sincerely doubt that the soccer league side has made any annual profits ever. By that I mean the league as a whole. From Tampa Bay Mutiny to columbus crew to Toronto FC over that past 15 years.

There is no way that can ever fly beacuse all owners would have to do is divvy up the operations into divisions where they say "this doesn't apply" to the total revenue generated. You claim day to day ops and merch sales only would apply. Why should it be only what you determine to be applicable revenue? Why not more? Why not less? Does SUM not use MLS players in their marketing? Does this happen outside of what players do? Unless you can prove that SUM does not use players in their operations and that SUM is completely unrelated to the goals and operations of MLS, there is no way you can make a case that SUM money does not apply in these negotiations. If just one single MLS player works on behalf or makes any sort of appearance on SUM promotional material, your case is tanked. If the money is distributed exclusively to MLS franchise owners and not a much wider unrelated group or on the flip-sdie only a small exclusive group within the MLS franchise owners that operate separately than the other owners, then your case is tanked.

SUM applies. It applies in all other sports leagues. It applies here. The NHL tried this tactic and it didn't work, people saw right through it.

[Whoop]

You ask players why they don't state their case to get the public on their side...why don't the owners come out with accurate numbers for all operations and show us the kind of losses they are supposedly taking and REALLY prove their case of being "poor"?

LOL I'm not on any side.

In the PR game, the owner's are smart not to do that. Not many people ask and technically they don't have to open their books.

And in any sports related labour dispute, the majority of the public sides with the owners. You would figure these athletes would be smart enough to flip it around.

And to add... I wonder how much relocation would be worth? i.e. You could argue that the Dallas franchise has an XXX value... if you were able to move to, say Montreal.

[Phil]

Well some great comments about the realities from more owners in the MLS here:

http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2010/0...ch+Invasion%29

replacement players being speculated now.

[olegunnar]

And to add... I wonder how much relocation would be worth? i.e. You could argue that the Dallas franchise has an XXX value... if you were able to move to, say Montreal.

Dallas is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. They won't move.

They make money. Pizza Hut Park is a great revenue generator. Concerts, High School sports, Office space leased out to tennants, 17 year round fields for camps, associations, coportate events. etc. etc. The stadium hosts 640,000 people a year. The fields outside host 750,000 people a year.

http://www.pizzahutpark.com/Home/Abo...5/Default.aspx



If you were to just look at P&Ls for FC Dallas though...they'd be tanking. 10,000 paid spectators a game won't pay all the bills.

[Roogsy]

And to add... I wonder how much relocation would be worth? i.e. You could argue that the Dallas franchise has an XXX value... if you were able to move to, say Montreal.

In accounting, the value of an asset is usually (not always) quoted by the last known trade value in a similar transaction. The trade value of a franchise is the franchise fee. Therefore, the value of a franchise in MLS is now 40mill. They themselves have set that value when demanding it from new owners wanting to enter the league and so long as there is someone willing to pay it and does pay it, that is the value. The league will not allow someone to come in and purchase Dallas for 15mill because that undermines their franchise fee demands. Therefore, even the crappiest of teams in the MLS are now worth 40mill at least. Teams like New York are therefore valued much, much higher because of the assets like Red Bull Arena.

[Whoop]

That's what I figured.

So in essence, from $10 million to $40 million in the course of the last 3-4 years, that's a big jump.

But couldn't you argue that the reason why people bought in, or want to buy in, is because of the current economic MLS model? If that were to change, couldn't it affect franchise values? Or are the proposed changes negligible?

[Roogsy]

I would say negligible.

After all, the free agency issue isn't going to raise the salary cap. It seems there is already a figure that is still under 3mill per team that will be used for next year.

This issue is solely about the league maintaining it's single-entity status which it itself knows is in peril already let alone if the players manage to squeeze free agency from them. Which is why I am pretty convinced the league will never budge on this and I hope the players know it. Which is why this is a perfect opportunity to squeeze everything else out of the league except for free agency.

That's how I would play this. If the players go to war over free agency, they will lose.