What would get you to renew your season tickets?

[jrober38]

I will give up my seats until there is another ownership group in town

I second this. As a disclaimer, I don't have seats, but there's no way I'd ever get them until someone else is running the show.

In 2009 the franchise was valued at $44 million, and I can't imagine it's increased much since then. If an individual were to step in and buy the franchise, I'd buy season tickets.

Just like every MLSE owned team, this team is going nowhere under it's current ownership model.

[ManUtd4ever]

A new ownership group will officially be in place shortly.

Can we expect a discernible difference in the way Rogers/Bell/Tanenbaum set up the overall infrastructure of the organization and implement marketing strategies?

I certainly hope so.

[jrober38]

A new ownership group will officially be in place shortly.

Can we expect a discernible difference in the way Rogers/Bell/Tanenbaum set up the overall infrastructure of the organization and implement marketing strategies?

I certainly hope so.

I'm not expecting any changes.

We're going from one corporate ownership group to another. For things to truly change, we need a new owner to sit atop the thrown as the unquestioned head of the franchise. That person needs to have a successful business background, and more importantly they have to have a vision for how the team will function and then to implement that vision. Part of that is to have a vested interest in watching the team win, which means that they, like us, are actually effected emotionally by the results the team produces.

IMO, only a single owner, or small partnership of owners can achieve that.

[Hitcho]

I selected a 25% decrease, but honestly, my real answer is that seasons need to become a value again. I can get tickets when I need them at face of the ticket trader here, or on groupon or scalpers often below cost. I can't use all of my seasons in a given year, and the secondary market is more or less dead so I end up eating the cost of tickets.

It's a pure value proposition to me. I'll do the math closer to renewal, but I can't see seasons being worth it.

The other thing would be if they became a hot enough commodity that it would be tough to get into the stadium. But if that was the case - then seasons would move back into the value proposition again as my unused tickets would be in demand.

A DP would or an improved record alone would not convince me, as it would have little to no bearing on my ability to attend the same number of games I do now. Only if either or both changed the price equation.

Firing Anselmi - nope. That's only the first bit. The second bit is they'd need to do the right thing and put the right people into place to improve the club. They could just as easily put another incompetent in place. And again - hate to harp on it, but it's all about the value.

I'd say this basically sums it up for me. All good points. Winning and even performance is not the issue for me. I'll support my team win or lose - even if we lose nine in a row. But what I won't do is pay through the teeth for season tickets while the front office gouges its fans and lurches from one inept, panicked regime change to another in search of more and more profits at the expense of any football related considerations.

MLSE is not trying to run a football club. It is trying to run a profit machine and rountinely takes short sighted decisions to try and keep fans paying money just that little bit longer. The football is a side issue to them. I can no longer support the current ownership if that's their outlook.

For me, I won't be renewing unless A) the Bell/Rogers sale goes through, B) Anslemi is replaced by someone who knows what they are doing and actually cares about the football side of things rather than just the profit side and C) the new ownership makes a meaningful reduction in season ticket prices to bring them more into line with average MLS prices rather than very top end.

Everything Brad said above is right on - MLSE are not providing any value. My four season tickets won't be renewed unless that changes.

[ManUtd4ever]

I'm not expecting any changes.

We're going from one corporate ownership group to another. For things to truly change, we need a new owner to sit atop the thrown as the unquestioned head of the franchise. That person needs to have a successful business background, and more importantly they have to have a vision for how the team will function and then to implement that vision. Part of that is to have a vested interest in watching the team win, which means that they, like us, are actually effected emotionally by the results the team produces.

IMO, only a single owner, or small partnership of owners can achieve that.

Rogers and Bell are the two largest media conglomerates in the country. Assuming that they intend on capitalizing on content by televising all TFC matches on Sportsnet and TSN, they will have a vested interest in delivering a winning product, because there is additional profitability at stake. The new ownership group might not be affected emotionally by the team's results, but they will be certainly be affected financially, which is a much greater motivational factor.

[jrober38]

Rogers and Bell are the two largest media conglomerates in the country. Assuming that they intend on capitalizing on content by televising all TFC matches on Sportsnet and TSN, they will have a vested interest in delivering a winning product, because there is additional profitability at stake. The new ownership group might not be affected emotionally by the team's results, but they will be certainly be affected financially, which is a much greater motivational factor.

The current ownership group is also motivated by money, and the team has been a colossal disaster with that as our intended goal.

You need a guy or small group of guys with a vision for how a Football Club should be run. Although making money is important, the priority of the team needs to be winning games.

One person needs to be making the decisions. Not a board of CFAs who think they know how to run soccer club.

[ManUtd4ever]

The current ownership group is also motivated by money, and the team has been a colossal disaster with that as our intended goal.

You need a guy or small group of guys with a vision for how a Football Club should be run. Although making money is important, the priority of the team needs to be winning games.

One person needs to be making the decisions. Not a board of CFAs who think they know how to run soccer club.

The current ownership group may have been motivated by money, but not to the same extent because:

a) The strong STH base was basically handed to them on a silver platter. The new ownership group will have to earn the loyalty of the fan base with results on the pitch and aggressive ticket pricing strategies.

b) The current ownership group didn't rely on television content to deliver stellar ratings. Gol TV has never had strong ratings because of limited exposure, but the national and regional powerhouse networks owned by Rogers and Bell (Sportsnet and TSN) will rely on much stronger ratings from their TFC related content.

I agree with hiring the right individual to oversee the infrastructure of the club, and hopefully, the new ownership consortium will make that their first order of business.

[Pyeddo]

Rogers and Bell are the two largest media conglomerates in the country. Assuming that they intend on capitalizing on content by televising all TFC matches on Sportsnet and TSN, they will have a vested interest in delivering a winning product, because there is additional profitability at stake. The new ownership group might not be affected emotionally by the team's results, but they will be certainly be affected financially, which is a much greater motivational factor.

Their purchase of ML$E was about vertical integration and control of content, nothing more.

[ManUtd4ever]

Their purchase of ML$E was about vertical integration and control of content

Correct, but that doesn't negate the added motivation that will be a factor for the new ownership group as a result of owning and controlling the content, compared to the OTPP.

[jrober38]

Just throwing this out there, but I don't put much stock into the fact that Bell and Rogers are massive CANADIAN communications companies because they operate in a business environment that massively promotes their ability to make money by limiting their competition in the communications markets.

They might be successful by Canadian standards, but none of us have any idea how we'll they'd perform if they were forced to play on a level playingfield against their American counterparts.

The point I'm making is that you don't have to be some sort of savvy business genius to make money in an industry almost all of the public uses when you have one major competitor.

Because of that, I don't have much faith that they're going to come in here and clean up this mess. As most of us know, Bell and Rogers have pretty glaring weaknesses (pricing, customer service) that we the consumers have no choice but to accept because modern society forces us to use their products.

I worry that on a playing field where we the consumer actually have a choice whether or not we're going to buy what they're selling, that the product they produce will be anything better than what we've grown used to.

They might want to put an improved product on the field, but until they show us they know how to, I'm going to remain skeptical that their corporate ownership structure will work any better than the existing one.

I hope I'm wrong.

[ManUtd4ever]

Just throwing this out there, but I don't put much stock into the fact that Bell and Rogers are massive CANADIAN communications companies because they operate in a business environment that massively promotes their ability to make money by limiting their competition in the communications markets.

They might be successful by Canadian standards, but none of us have any idea how we'll they'd perform if they were forced to play on a level playingfield against their American counterparts.

The point I'm making is that you don't have to be some sort of savvy business genius to make money in an industry almost all of the public uses when you have one major competitor.

Because of that, I don't have much faith that they're going to come in here and clean up this mess. As most of us know, Bell and Rogers have pretty glaring weaknesses (pricing, customer service) that we the consumers have no choice but to accept because modern society forces us to use their products.

I worry that on a playing field where we the consumer actually have a choice whether or not we're going to buy what they're selling, that the product they produce will be anything better than what we've grown used to.

I hope I'm wrong.

As a Canadian telecommunications consumer, I absolutely agree.

Nonetheless, I think there will be a much greater impetus to deliver a winning product within the new ownership consortium, because Rogers and Bell will stand to lose susbtantially more potential supplemental profit than their predecessors if the Leafs, Raptors, and TFC continue to falter.

[jrober38]

As a Canadian telecommunications consumer, I absolutely agree.

Nonetheless, I think there will be a much greater impetus to deliver a winning product within the new ownership consortium, because Rogers and Bell will stand to lose susbtantially more potential supplemental profit than their predecessors if the Leafs, Raptors, and TFC continue to falter.

I'm not sure that's true.

All of those teams have been terrible for roughly 10 years, but because of the size and amount of disposable income in the city, each team continues to put enough fans in the seats for ownership to be successful.

I mean, I don't know what TFCs average attendance numbers are, but suppose that new ownership improves the product and increases the number of attendees by 2,000 fans a game. At roughly $60/game day experience (ticket, concessions) over a 17 game home schedule, you're only looking at about $2 million in additional revenue.

To companies who combined made $30 billion last year, $2 million is totally irrelevant.

As someone said earlier, this is entirely about vertical integration of the content. They're going to make meaningful money off of their televisions viewers; not from ticket sales.

HD TSN and TSN2 are already like $10 a month. Once they get control of all the MLSE sports teams, they're just going to pass additional costs off to their Television subscribers because.

[ManUtd4ever]

I'm not sure that's true.

All of those teams have been terrible for roughly 10 years, but because of the size and amount of disposable income in the city, each team continues to put enough fans in the seats for ownership to be successful.

I mean, I don't know what TFCs average attendance numbers are, but suppose that new ownership improves the product and increases the number of attendees by 2,000 fans a game. At roughly $60/game day experience (ticket, concessions) over a 17 game home schedule, you're only looking at about $2 million in additional revenue.

To companies who combined made $30 billion last year, $2 million is totally irrelevant.

As someone said earlier, this is entirely about vertical integration of the content. They're going to make meaningful money off of their televisions viewers; not from ticket sales.

This is precisely the point I was trying to make. TFC is obviously the smallest piece of the pie, but the TV ratings for all of their sports properties will be much higher and generate more profit if the teams are successful on the ice/court/pitch.

[jrober38]

This is precisely the point I was trying to make. TFC is obviously the smallest piece of the pie, but the TV ratings for all of their sports properties will be much higher and generate more profit if the teams are successful on the ice/court/pitch.

I expect the real push to put on improving the Leafs. That's has been, and always will be MLSE's cash cow.

Unfortunately for people who don't care about the Leafs, they're going to be gouged by the telecommunication providers now because all of their games are guaranteed to be aired on their networks.

For example, if Bell and Rogers both came out tomorrow and said; from now on all MLSE sports teams will play ALL of their games on our networks, and to have access to those channels you have to pay $20/month.

People will complain, but in the end way more people will buy into that because they love the Leafs than will cancel their subscription.

The amount of money they'll make there will totally offset their need to put a winning Raptors team on the court and a TFC game on the pitch.

People will already be paying to watch the Leafs...

[BFin]

I work in Telecommunications and the on-going conversation confuses me.

Yes, Rogers/Bell did buy MLSE in order to take control of content. However, this will not give them a significant additional revenue stream by airing on Sportsnet/TSN unless a derth of people begin paying for Mobile streaming OR they air the games on GolTV and force you to purchase. The only added value by having a successful product on the field would stem from MORE people paying to see matches.

MLSE (in it's current form) is purely responsible for the bottom line (profit). They are as motivated (if not more) to have a successful product on the field (merch, tickets, concessions etc.) than Rogers/Bell because the content rights are much less important and valuable to them. They just have their heads up their asses when it comes to putting sports people in place as opposed to successful business men. I don't know that I am expecting much of a change with the new regime.

[Hitcho]

There's always the possibility that Bell/Rogers will just look to hive off TFC. They will acquire it as part of MLSE, but really what they want is the Leafs and the Raptors and access to the massive US markets that provides. TFC is just window dressing to them. So they might just look for a quick cash boost in a lump sum (which would help to offset the purchase cost) by selling TFC to someone else, if they can find a buyer.

[ManUtd4ever]

I work in Telecommunications and the on-going conversation confuses me.

Yes, Rogers/Bell did buy MLSE in order to take control of content. However, this will not give them a significant additional revenue stream by airing on Sportsnet/TSN unless a derth of people begin paying for Mobile streaming OR they air the games on GolTV and force you to purchase. The only added value by having a successful product on the field would stem from MORE people paying to see matches.

MLSE (in it's current form) is purely responsible for the bottom line (profit). They are as motivated (if not more) to have a successful product on the field (merch, tickets, concessions etc.) than Rogers/Bell because the content rights are much less important and valuable to them. They just have their heads up their asses when it comes to putting sports people in place as opposed to successful business men. I don't know that I am expecting much of a change with the new regime.

If I'm not mistaken, higher television ratings for programming content equate additional revenue for the networks that sell air time for commercials/advertising, correct?

Therefore, it stands to reason that Rogers and Bell, by virtue of owning Sportsnet and TSN, would benefit financially to a greater extent than the OTPP in terms of generating additional revenue if more people tune in to watch the Leafs, Raptors, and TFC on Sportsnet and TSN, does it not?

If all of the teams are lousy, the ratings for the Leafs, Raptors, and TFC related content on Sportsnet and TSN will invariably decrease over the course of their respective seasons, which would have a deterimental impact on potential advertising revenue.

Am I missing something here?

[ryan]

There's always the possibility that Bell/Rogers will just look to hive off TFC. They will acquire it as part of MLSE, but really what they want is the Leafs and the Raptors and access to the massive US markets that provides. TFC is just window dressing to them. So they might just look for a quick cash boost in a lump sum (which would help to offset the purchase cost) by selling TFC to someone else, if they can find a buyer.

If I can only win Lotto Max...

[cmonyoureds]

I'm going to take the $'s I'd normally be spending on travel/tix/concessions at BMO and use it to go on road trips. Still supporting the team, and I usually....sorry ALWAYS..... have more fun on a road trip.

I know MLS is a single entity and all, and if the league is successful so are you, but I know a few people who are already doing this. That should really worry the TFC f/o....your "captive" audience buying your product from a competitor, who will gain the majority of the profits.

Figure I can do an additional two, maybe three roadtrips (none of which are Columbus I might add!!!!!) on top of what I already do and did I mention........DUTY FREE stops!!!!!!

[BFin]

If I'm not mistaken, higher television ratings for programming content equate additional revenue for the networks that sell air time for commercials/advertising, correct?

Therefore, it stands to reason that Rogers and Bell, by virtue of owning Sportsnet and TSN, would benefit financially to a greater extent than the OTPP in terms of generating additional revenue if more people tune in to watch the Leafs, Raptors, and TFC on Sportsnet and TSN, does it not?

If all of the teams are lousy, the ratings for the Leafs, Raptors, and TFC related content on Sportsnet and TSN will invariably decrease over the course of their respective seasons, which would have a deterimental impact on potential advertising revenue.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. Rogers and Bell do not garner revenues via ratings. They garner revenues via subscribership.

Ad revenue pales in comparison to the revenue generated by your base.

[T-boy]

How does this all impact TFC? Doesn't TFC viewership pale in comparison to viewership to hockey/baseball/basketball on Canadian TV? I doubt there is much interest from Rogers in TFC games...they have much bigger fish to fry in terms of TV revenue, I would have thought?

[Voodooman]

Pricing end of story. It costs too much. With Student tuition, there is no way I can afford to pay for tickets again next year at these prices

[BFin]

How does this all impact TFC? Doesn't TFC viewership pale in comparison to viewership to hockey/baseball/basketball on Canadian TV? I doubt there is much interest from Rogers in TFC games...they have much bigger fish to fry in terms of TV revenue, I would have thought?

That's precisely my point.

I'm saying there will not be much change in the desire to win with this organizational change.

We need to stop thinking of Rogers or Bell as TV Revenue. They are purely interested in their subscriber base and that will always be the battle within the industry. If the average TV bill per subscriber is between 60-90 bucks...multiply that times ~24 million households and twelve months and you'll see where the real revenue is. Rogers Media sells ads. Rogers Cable wants subscribers. Exclusive content gets that.

[kodiakTFC]

Pretty sure Bell/Rogers will keep TFC. There is more and more MLS coverage each year, their happy with the ratings and the team makes pretty good money for very little investment. If they sold it, they'd then have to buy into the rights, that doesn't make sense. Its better to just own all the sporting properties.

[Super]

I think for a lot of people it's not really about price. It's really more a feeling of not wanting to go to BMO anymore. Apathy. Complete and utter apathy. I've seen so many people disappear around me who used to go to every game, and now there's less than half of us left. They just stopped caring.

[ManUtd4ever]

Ah, ok. I thought that the ad revenue was more substantial.

In any case, by controlling exclusive content for the Leafs, Raps, and TFC, I would hope that Rogers/Bell will still be more motivated to promote winning teams as opposed to perennial losers within their programming content.

[billyfly]

I would renew if Budweiser became the official beer of BMO.

[jrober38]

How does this all impact TFC? Doesn't TFC viewership pale in comparison to viewership to hockey/baseball/basketball on Canadian TV? I doubt there is much interest from Rogers in TFC games...they have much bigger fish to fry in terms of TV revenue, I would have thought?

Exactly.

By being able to guarantee that all of the Leaf games will be aired on TSN or SportsNet, Bell and Rogers can pretty much turn around and charge whatever they want for their customers to have access to those channels.

If HD TSN and TSN2 is already $10/month, there's no way they won't charge more in the future knowing how inelastic the demand for Leafs games is. Unfortunately, Raptors and TFC fans are going to get totally screwed because the Leafs are so popular.

In the end, there's no new motivation to put a winning product on the field or court, because so many people will be willing to pay top dollar to watch the Laughs play on TV.

[Oldtimer]

Next year I'll make it easy, instead of paying my SSH invoice, I'm going to put my money into a pile and set it on fire.

[BFin]

Ah, ok. I thought that the ad revenue was more substantial.

In any case, by controlling exclusive content for the Leafs, Raps, and TFC, I would hope that Rogers/Bell will still be more motivated to promote winning teams as opposed to perennial losers within their programming content.

Here's hoping. I'm with a lot of people on the fact that if they just won and made the tickets/experience seem worth our while, I would have no issues renewing at the price I pay.