MLSE Sale: Wins Expected To Matter

[clc12]

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...rs-bell-regime

After reading this article in The Star it almost makes me think that we will have Tom Anslemi for a little while longer. Its pretty sad.

For MLSE, that’s a hard read. Economically, the pension fund managers created a powerhouse. But if wins and losses matter more, MLSE is a disaster.

This line is the one that makes me think they will want him to stay. God help us all!!

[T-boy]

I actually read that line the opposite way around.

This is the important part:

“Under the Teachers’ pension plan, this was an investment to generate resources to pay their pension,” said O’Reilly. “Now you have a syndicate of owners all that have vested interest in the teams being more successful.”

That means the sucess of MLSE will be judged less on the bottom line (profit) and more about the success of the sports teams. If Anslemi is judged on team results, he won't be in a job for long. Until now he's been judged most on whether he can get the pensions plan a lot of money, which he's clearly good at. But a sports franchase should be about results, never about the bottom line.

[Phil]

Results would mean profits for the new ownership. It means runs in the playoffs, higher ticket renewals and better ad revenue from TV.

Again, that seems pretty straight forward, MLSE seem to consistantly cock it all up along the way.

[ensco]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

[clc12]

I actually read that line the opposite way around.

This is the important part:

“Under the Teachers’ pension plan, this was an investment to generate resources to pay their pension,” said O’Reilly. “Now you have a syndicate of owners all that have vested interest in the teams being more successful.”

That means the sucess of MLSE will be judged less on the bottom line (profit) and more about the success of the sports teams. If Anslemi is judged on team results, he won't be in a job for long. Until now he's been judged most on whether he can get the pensions plan a lot of money, which he's clearly good at. But a sports franchase should be about results, never about the bottom line.

If looking at the bottom line then Tom Anselmi looks good. Its the GM's that they might be looking at for the lack of results. I totally agree with you that it should be about the results.

[brad]

Pointless article. The financial incentive to win is always there. I wonder how much additional revenue they would be looking at in a given year if the Leafs were to make a deep playoff run? I suspect that it is going to be high.

[Beach_Red]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

This is a little off-topic, but I find it interesting that universities are interested in 'sports management' and the business schools seem to get very involved in sports but the 'film studies' department seems to go out of its way to make sure the 'business' part of the 'entertainment business' never gets mentioned. Is there an equivalent professor at U of T who could talk about what Bell and Rogers have done in the TV production part of their businesses? Sure, they've resold US product at a healthy profit in a highly regulated marketplace, but what have they made themselves? That might be a better indicator of how they're going to treat the product on the ice/court/pitch.

[DangerRed]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

I couldn't agree with you more. The Star interviews two sports professors with no direct knowledge whatsoever of MLSE's inner workings or the intentions of the new ownership, and this is considered strong enough journalism to be newsworthy? Fucking pathetic.

[Richard]

MLSE makes money without winning. Why should Bell/Rogers care about wining when the fans in this city still pay top dollar?

I get they make more money but they will be indifferent like the current ownership if they still roll in cash. Anyways i hope for everyones sake they actually care and dont decide to hike your cable or interent bill in the near future.

[T-boy]

Pointless article. The financial incentive to win is always there. I wonder how much additional revenue they would be looking at in a given year if the Leafs were to make a deep playoff run? I suspect that it is going to be high.

You can argue either way, actually. A play-off run is NEVER guaranteed in any sport. If a team puts masses of money into their team, you can pretty much "guarantee" a ploy-off spot, yes. But once you get into the playoffs themselves, nothing is guaranteed. So, you end up putting a mass of money in and getting possible 3 extra home games (in hockey). In the MLS, you only get ONE extra guaranteed game. That one game isn't going to generate enough income to compensate for paying 3 David Beckhams' worth of DP money.

If you are going to sell out a stadium every game anyways (like the Leafs, and up until now, TFC) the safest way to get guaranteed profit is to sink as little into the players as possible, and be mid table.

Getting DEEP into the playoffs is profitable, but getting to round one and then being knocked out won't get you anything, especially if you've put a lot of money into players at the start of the season.

That's where I have a problem with the play off model in the MLS. When you come to 1 off cup knock out games, or 2 leg games, nothing is guaranteed. Look at NYRB's and LAG 2 season's ago - knocked out by Dallas and Colorado even though both teams were loaded with DP's.

[OgtheDim]

MLSE makes money without winning. Why should Bell/Rogers care about wining when the fans in this city still pay top dollar?.......

Because they make far more money from content on their stations, in their newspaper, and on the net then they ever will with ticket and merchandise sales.

This is about making those team sellable to eyeballs.


****

There is one bit of that article I do agree with. Tannembaum is the key - if he continues to rule the roost, Anselmi, and Mariner, stay in charge. If Anselmi is instead kicked upstairs (he will not be fired), then this show will change.

[Brooker]

The myth that MLSE doesn't care about winning because they already make a lot of money is so unbearably stupid I don't know why people continue to spew it out.

[Beach_Red]

You can argue either way, actually. A play-off run is NEVER guaranteed in any sport. If a team puts masses of money into their team, you can pretty much "guarantee" a ploy-off spot, yes. But once you get into the playoffs themselves, nothing is guaranteed. So, you end up putting a mass of money in and getting possible 3 extra home games (in hockey). In the MLS, you only get ONE extra guaranteed game. That one game isn't going to generate enough income to compensate for paying 3 David Beckhams' worth of DP money.

If you are going to sell out a stadium every game anyways (like the Leafs, and up until now, TFC) the safest way to get guaranteed profit is to sink as little into the players as possible, and be mid table.

Getting DEEP into the playoffs is profitable, but getting to round one and then being knocked out won't get you anything, especially if you've put a lot of money into players at the start of the season.

That's where I have a problem with the play off model in the MLS. When you come to 1 off cup knock out games, or 2 leg games, nothing is guaranteed. Look at NYRB's and LAG 2 season's ago - knocked out by Dallas and Colorado even though both teams were loaded with DP's.

There are other ways to spend, or not spend, too. When Burke took over the Leafs he talked about having to completely rebuild the scouting and in TFC's case there were all kinds of places they could have spent but didn't - even something like grass didn't get put in until after the Edu sale.

And yeah, there isn't really a "deep" to go in MLS playoffs, but in that case the word 'playoff' is really just a way of saying, "winning season."

[T-boy]

The myth that MLSE doesn't care about winning because they already make a lot of money is so unbearably stupid I don't know why people continue to spew it out.

The facts are in the history of the organisation and each individual sporting team!

Look at the Leafs - richest team in the NHL: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/...s-10_land.html

And yet they haven't reached the play offs in 8 seasons?

If MLSE REALLY cared about getting their teams to the top of their respective sports, they would do it.

Running a business is done with your head - running a sports team is run with your heart. MLSE has purely been a front for money making for a pension fund. You cna't run a sports team successfully while the main objective is making money for a bunch of people (teachers) who's future depend on that money.

[Super]

Business is all about increasing profits - not just about making profits. Surely the board, or owners, can't be happy with the massive lost potential in all of the MLSE owned properties. If there is more to be made, then you bring in the guy who can do that - and not just the guy who can make you the minimum profit (Tom Anselmi).

[Ultra & Proud]

The facts are in the history of the organisation and each individual sporting team!

Look at the Leafs - richest team in the NHL: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/...s-10_land.html

And yet they haven't reached the play offs in 8 seasons?

If MLSE REALLY cared about getting their teams to the top of their respective sports, they would do it.

Running a business is done with your head - running a sports team is run with your heart. MLSE has purely been a front for money making for a pension fund. You cna't run a sports team successfully while the main objective is making money for a bunch of people (teachers) who's future depend on that money.

He is right, all the talk of MLSE not wanting to succeed to maximize profits is stupid. It's not like MLSE teams are spending near the bottom of all of their respective leagues in payroll. All are fairly high up minus the Raptors last season but still not in the bargain basement zone. This whole MLSE doesn't care about winning is proven to be idiotic by that and that alone. All your stats show is that all our teams toss big bucks at fairly proven people to run their organizations and all of them fail. Honestly, did everyone think both Colangelo & Burke would fail this massively? Are these cheap ass appointees that MLSE dropped a few measly bucks on to to be puppets? No. The system makes sense business wise as business people are running the show and entrusting qualified hirings to run each operation. Obviously their selections aren't panning out and we did have Mo for some time so their selections are sometimes questionable but they didn't come cheap.

Also last time I checked, playoffs were worth quite a bit of cash. You think they like losing out on that cash? Especially when they dump a cap thresholds amount of coin on players that never get you to the playoffs?

Incompetence = yes. Wanting to fail = stupid.

[Shakes McQueen]

MLSE makes money without winning. Why should Bell/Rogers care about wining when the fans in this city still pay top dollar?

Because in addition to being a financial investment for Bell/Rogers, these teams they bought are now also going to be on-air programming for them, providing a stronger incentive to make them contenders than they had under OTPP.

The Leafs may be more immune to the ebb and flow of results-based ratings and income than most sports teams, but TFC and the Raptors are decidedly NOT.

- Scott

[ginkster88]

All this head/heart talk is nonsense.

Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
Boston Bruins
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Vancouver Canucks
San Jose Sharks
Chicago Blackhawks

Nine of 16 teams in the NHL playoffs this year are corporately owned. To say that corporate ownership=/=winning is simplistic and misses the big picture.

[Shakes McQueen]

Incompetence = yes. Wanting to fail = stupid.

This is what I've always maintained about MLSE - they aren't cheap, they are incompetent. There is a distinct difference.

I have no doubt MLSE want to win. The problem is they have been too incompetent to get there.

- Scott

[ensco]

We spend way too much time on the few people who say MLSE don't want to succeed. That is pretty obviously wrong. The issue is, why haven't the people who have not succeeded, been held accountable?

I will be popping a champagne cork when Teachers is gone.

This will all change tomorrow, so it's beating a dead horse now.

[Beach_Red]

Because in addition to being a financial investment for Bell/Rogers, these teams they bought are now also going to be on-air programming for them, providing a stronger incentive to make them contenders than they had under OTPP.

The Leafs may be more immune to the ebb and flow of results-based ratings and income than most sports teams, but TFC and the Raptors are decidedly NOT.

- Scott

So, it may be that the Leafs - being more immune, as you say - are the US on-air programming they buy and the Raptors/TFC are the domestic programming they make themselves. There is a very big difference in the way they treat their on-air programming.

[ManUtd4ever]

Because in addition to being a financial investment for Bell/Rogers, these teams they bought are now also going to be on-air programming for them, providing a stronger incentive to make them contenders than they had under OTPP.

The Leafs may be more immune to the ebb and flow of results-based ratings and income than most sports teams, but TFC and the Raptors are decidedly NOT.

- Scott

All this head/heart talk is nonsense.

Philadelphia Flyers
New York Rangers
Boston Bruins
Florida Panthers
Nashville Predators
St. Louis Blues
Vancouver Canucks
San Jose Sharks
Chicago Blackhawks

Nine of 16 teams in the NHL playoffs this year are corporately owned. To say that corporate ownership=/=winning is simplistic and misses the big picture.

Agreed.

[T-boy]

He is right, all the talk of MLSE not wanting to succeed to maximize profits is stupid. It's not like MLSE teams are spending near the bottom of all of their respective leagues in payroll. All are fairly high up minus the Raptors last season but still not in the bargain basement zone. This whole MLSE doesn't care about winning is proven to be idiotic by that and that alone. All your stats show is that all our teams toss big bucks at fairly proven people to run their organizations and all of them fail. Honestly, did everyone think both Colangelo & Burke would fail this massively? Are these cheap ass appointees that MLSE dropped a few measly bucks on to to be puppets? No. The system makes sense business wise as business people are running the show and entrusting qualified hirings to run each operation. Obviously their selections aren't panning out and we did have Mo for some time so their selections are sometimes questionable but they didn't come cheap.

Also last time I checked, playoffs were worth quite a bit of cash. You think they like losing out on that cash? Especially when they dump a cap thresholds amount of coin on players that never get you to the playoffs?

Incompetence = yes. Wanting to fail = stupid.

Of course I'm oversimplying the argument, for sure.

But there is no "guarantee" of extra profit for MLSE if the Leafs get in the play offs or not. The stadium is full anyways, without getting into the play offs. So then you are only talking about extra "guaranteed" revenue from 3 extra home games. How much money will those 3 games genarate? Minimal in comparison to the possible salary increase to try and get you there in the first place.

In any sport you can either run your team conservatively, or liberally. MLSE run the Leafs fairly convervatively as far as I can see. And that's fine for them, as they are guaranteed to sell every seat to every single game anyway!

I'm not saying that MLSE "want to fail". But I'm saying that MLSE "have little incentive to be the best in the league". If the Leafs sell out EVERY seat, and yet never reach the play offs, what's the incentive to put MORE money in, when the play offs aren't guaranteed?

[brad]

You can argue either way, actually. A play-off run is NEVER guaranteed in any sport. If a team puts masses of money into their team, you can pretty much "guarantee" a ploy-off spot, yes. But once you get into the playoffs themselves, nothing is guaranteed. So, you end up putting a mass of money in and getting possible 3 extra home games (in hockey). In the MLS, you only get ONE extra guaranteed game. That one game isn't going to generate enough income to compensate for paying 3 David Beckhams' worth of DP money.

It's interesting that you should mention this. Putting massive amounts of money into a team does not guarantee a playoff spot. The Leafs have one of the highest wage bills in the NHL and do not make the playoffs. So do TFC for that matter, and they do not make the playoffs. It's not about how much you spend, it's about how you spend it.

And when dealing with big name players like Beckham, the off field revenue far outweighs what comes from the on field improvement. I bet the Galaxy could have brought in a much better player than Beckham for the kind of money they paid, but would not have made financial sense.

Also, the argument is not one about whether or not spending more money is an incentive to win. The incentive to win is always there, and is not changing based upon ownership.

If you are going to sell out a stadium every game anyways (like the Leafs, and up until now, TFC) the safest way to get guaranteed profit is to sink as little into the players as possible, and be mid table.

Getting DEEP into the playoffs is profitable, but getting to round one and then being knocked out won't get you anything, especially if you've put a lot of money into players at the start of the season.

But we are talking about MLSE in specific here. They spend the money on players already. This is not a discussion about whether or not spending the money on players is worthwhile when balanced against potential income from playoffs. It's a case MLSE already spends larger amounts on players compared to the other teams in the league. In this situation, is there a change in incentive to win based on the change of ownership. Not in the least. Winning = extra revenue.

That's where I have a problem with the play off model in the MLS. When you come to 1 off cup knock out games, or 2 leg games, nothing is guaranteed. Look at NYRB's and LAG 2 season's ago - knocked out by Dallas and Colorado even though both teams were loaded with DP's.

We aren't just talking TFC/MLS here. This is talking about MLSE as a whole. Leafs are what drives it all. We are small potatoes.

[OgtheDim]

TFC profits come from bums in the seats.

They will come from eyes on the smartphone/tablet/monitor/big screen watching the pitch surrounded by bums in the seats.

BTW, CBC is never getting a sniff of MLS again.

[TOBOR !]

That's 5 minutes I'll never get back.

The article is poorly written, and the U of T professor quoted is brain dead. This business have having "experts" on absurd topics in universities (sports mgmt? are you kidding me?) that get quoted by newspapers, is a fricking joke.

Cheers.

[takes extra five minutes and puts in pocket for future use]

[TOBOR !]

It's not about how much you spend, it's about how you spend it.

... and what you do with what you've spent it on.

[T-boy]

It's interesting that you should mention this. Putting massive amounts of money into a team does not guarantee a playoff spot. The Leafs have one of the highest wage bills in the NHL and do not make the playoffs. So do TFC for that matter, and they do not make the playoffs. It's not about how much you spend, it's about how you spend it.

And when dealing with big name players like Beckham, the off field revenue far outweighs what comes from the on field improvement. I bet the Galaxy could have brought in a much better player than Beckham for the kind of money they paid, but would not have made financial sense.

Also, the argument is not one about whether or not spending more money is an incentive to win. The incentive to win is always there, and is not changing based upon ownership.



But we are talking about MLSE in specific here. They spend the money on players already. This is not a discussion about whether or not spending the money on players is worthwhile when balanced against potential income from playoffs. It's a case MLSE already spends larger amounts on players compared to the other teams in the league. In this situation, is there a change in incentive to win based on the change of ownership. Not in the least. Winning = extra revenue.



We aren't just talking TFC/MLS here. This is talking about MLSE as a whole. Leafs are what drives it all. We are small potatoes.

In regards to the wage bill. You are looking at the current wage bill only. Until mid-last season, TFC didn't have the wage bill they have now, with Koev's and Frings adding a massive amount of money to the current wage bill. I don't think bringing TFC's 2012 wage bill into the argument is very valid just because we all realise Aron Winter wasn't getting anywhere near enough out of the squad as he should have been. With a decent coach at the start of this season, TFC should have been in the playoffs. But before this season, other teams had been far out paying TFC in regards to DP's. With the income that MLSE (the company) has, TFC "could" be paying Beckham money to players, and attracting the likes of Henry and Cahill.

And agreed, TFC is tiny potatoes in comparison to MLSE's main business.

[brad]

In regards to the wage bill. You are looking at the current wage bill only. Until mid-last season, TFC didn't have the wage bill they have now, with Koev's and Frings adding a massive amount of money to the current wage bill. I don't think bringing TFC's 2012 wage bill into the argument is very valid just because we all realise Aron Winter wasn't getting anywhere near enough out of the squad as he should have been. With a decent coach at the start of this season, TFC should have been in the playoffs. But before this season, other teams had been far out paying TFC in regards to DP's. With the income that MLSE (the company) has, TFC "could" be paying Beckham money to players, and attracting the likes of Henry and Cahill.

And agreed, TFC is tiny potatoes in comparison to MLSE's main business.

I'm not concerned about TFC here, I only mentioned them as an aside. This article is not about TFC - it's about MLSE as whole. So the Leafs are what is relevant in this discussion - not us. They have around the top of the league in spending for a long time.

[Shakes McQueen]

The title of this thread is fucking hilarious, and really signifies how dire things are in Toronto sports at the moment.

"Wins expected to matter" is a provocative and interesting statement in an Onion article, not real life. And yet here we are.

- Scott