Thanks. Forgot that. Even with our road gate share, the numbers are worse than I said.Originally Posted by Pookie
Thanks. Forgot that. Even with our road gate share, the numbers are worse than I said.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Oh playoff games will be expensive. Unless they do the right thing and comp the first one to all SSHs. LA playoff games are included in their ticket package btw.
Anyways, as for your point about promotion and higher next round prices, that is exactly the scenario that Leafs/Raptors/Argos/Jays would find themselves in. Limited notice to fans from one series to the next… assuming they were successful… and even shorter notice if the series goes beyond the scheduled 4 (ie. a Game 5,6 or 7).
We can therefore eliminate that variable from the equation.
I would contend that seeing, being seen at the Beckham game or wanting to beat Beckham has a lot to do with attendance and TV ratings. Again, not saying you are wrong just saying that I would feel better about your Vancouver example if they were playing Chivas and drew over 300k.
We will find out by next season if TFC can get 30K people coming to their games, but this season, they have been sold out every game. Remember, TL and co will go all out in their marketing in the off-season to hype up TFC for next season. I wouldn't be surprised if we see similar marketing to Raptors with their "We The North" campaign.
Well I am going what Tim Leiweke himself said regarding about getting extra few million dollars this year from sponsors.Sponsors: I posted this before - what new big sponsors are there? This is a game Leiweke (and especially the guy who works for him, Dave whatever his name), are playing. They are bloviating hard about how wonderful TV and sponsors have been since they arrived, but I call BS.
Personally speaking, I have notice sponsors like Rogers being more visible and making their presence felt this year at the games and having promotion deals for their own customers.
Fair enough.
We will see this year how TFC playoff games do in the ratings especially going against Maple Leafs, Raptors and NBA (A lot of hype this year due to Andrew Wiggins).
22K for an important midseason game against the league's champions, with no hockey going against it, says more to me than any of the above about where this all is.
I don't care what kind of marketing or sponsorship plan they put against this, you cannot get from here to there. Most things in life are bought, not sold.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Rogers aren't really a sponsor, though, they're an owner of MLSE. And that's really the issue, all these teams are owned by a couple of media companies who were looking for exclusive content to drive subscriptions now that they are losing a lot of exclusivity in TV. So the ratings are very important.
And MLS is still finding it's level but it looks like for the next 15-20 years this is it's level. Which is fine, really, but we'll see how MLSE feel about it soon enough.
Amount of damage previous management did on TFC, it's going to take a while repair TFC brand.
The fact we're selling out games again, tells me interest is there. Now how we fix TV numbers? Who knows, but being owned by Rogers and Bell sure will help to fix TV ratings problem.
Outside of TV numbers, everything else is looking good from TFC POV.
What do you mean? Rogers always been sponsor even before owning TFC. Why would Rogers be so interested in TFC when Bell mostly broadcast TFC games? How come we don't see Bell advertisement and promotion for TFC?
There are not many business where spending $15M a year to increase revenues by $3-5M a year is seen as "looking good". TFC is one beancounter having a bad day away from having a very different business plan.
I'll leave it. We'll see about next year, next year.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Well I am sure MLSE didn't give $15 million per year to increase $3-5 million in revenue per year. There's obviously a business plan in place (we all know Rogers and Bell don't give money away blindly) to get their investment back which I believe is by increasing seating capacity while receiving more money from their sponsors. Add to the fact that MLS signed new major TV deal in the states, money is potentially there to make $15 million per year investment worth it for them.
The Raptors had abysmal ratings all last season even after they started winning. But they got a huge bump in the playoffs, got over a million viewers for one game even beating out playoff hockey. If TFC makes a run in the playoffs they will easily beat their early season numbers.
As for whether this is all worth it to MLSE, having winning teams is a good look for them - and much needed. IF TFC has some real success this year, I think Rogers/Bell will be fine taking a hit. Especially since the TV deal is going way up next year. Not the mention the increased capacity at BMO. They've also renegotiated their deal with the city to keep more of the revenue. MLSE, as always, are going to be fine.
What I mean is that the Rogers sponsorship money isn't straight revenue for MLSE, it's just being moved around. Is getting Rogers new subscribers? So far it doesn't look like it, but if MLs ever got really popular it might, there are probably a lot of people who only have cable for the Leafs.
Anyway, it doesn't matter because this level of TFC is fine. What do we care as long as there are games to go to? As long as the league is running the team will be here and will spend as much as many other teams and some years will even spend the most. If the league rises in popularity so will the budget for TFC and if the league gets smaller in popularity the budget will become less. As it will for all the teams in the league.
A million viewers for the NBA. Ever see a million viewers for the MLS? Any team? Any game?
They should beat their season numbers but let's also remember that most playoff games are on weekends. If evening, it goes up against the NHL. If afternoon, it will go up against the NFL. It's not a slam dunk by any stretch (no pun intended)
They haven't renegotiated their deal with MLS. All teams keep 50% of their gate receipts. If they keep more of it from the City that's fine but we are talking about marginal increases and not even close to justifying $15M in expenditure.As for whether this is all worth it to MLSE, having winning teams is a good look for them - and much needed. IF TFC has some real success this year, I think Rogers/Bell will be fine taking a hit. Especially since the TV deal is going way up next year. Not the mention the increased capacity at BMO. They've also renegotiated their deal with the city to keep more of the revenue. MLSE, as always, are going to be fine.
The TV deal is with the MLS. If that profit is redistributed to the teams, that's independent of TFC's expenses. Looking at it another way, TFC could cut its expenses by $10M and still make the same if that profit is redistributed.
MLSE makes its money off TFC as follows:
- Management fee paid by the league
- 50% of local ticket sales and concessions
- Merchandise
- Keep the first $1.125M of local TV revenues
- 100% of revenues from friendlies
- 50% of revenue from the MLS Championship game
http://www.niu.edu/law/organizations...%20131-174.pdf
Spending on Defoe/Bradley has no return at all on a number of those variables and those that are impacted will never generate $10M per season.
If you are financially minded within MLSE, you have to look to Vancouver and ask some serious questions.
They have similar ticket revenue. Similar TV ratings. Have better on field performance. If they wanted to expand they just take the drapes down. And spend half of what TFC does. That's an uncomfortable Boardroom question that has to be on the minds of some.
Out of 3 Canadian MLS teams, TFC is most valuable one (worth $121 million USD) and one of the most valuable teams in the league. Revenue wise, TFC had $31 million (operating income of $4.5 million) while Vancouver had $23 million (they didn't make any income).
(Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmi...aluable-teams/).
Given TFC is planning to increase seating capacity so they can sustain their new philosophy of building their on-field product by spending big tells me they're in it in long haul. I don't think TFC will ever go back being "cheap" and being typical MLS team unless we have new ownership who doesn't care about soccer.
My point was that making the playoffs brings a huge increase in viewers. The Raptors got 53k for their home opener on TSN2. Right before the playoffs they were hovering around 150k. Ratings more than quadrupled in the playoffs.
And I seriously doubt MLSE is as worried about the financials as people on this board seem to be. This team has made a profit every year of its existence, including when we had 3 DPs. Leiweke said they're going to take a hit now but they should be back to profitability in a couple years. So clearly they've projected for this level of spending, don't forget the TV deal is tripling next year. And in the mean time, how much are they really losing? A few million dollars a year? Chump change for MLSE.
We're halfway through year one of this new high-spending era of TFC. Let's let things play out before assuming the board thinks its a failure and they're gonna sell Defoe and Bradley to adopt the vaunted Vancouver model.
Those numbers are estimates from the 2012 season. Take them with a grain of salt since they are estimates of financials from a business that is not public.
Even then, if operating income was $4.5M and expenses have grown by at least $10M two years later… that is a net operating loss of $5.5M per season.
That's exactly the point we are trying to make. Even if Vancouver doesn't post a profit, they are still in a better position.
That's an assumption that they are planning to increase capacity for TFC. If they truly were in it for the long haul they would build their own instead of renovating the City's. All we hear is Winter Classics and Grey Cups. They are increasing capacity in order to put other events into it while mitigating the financial risk.Given TFC is planning to increase seating capacity so they can sustain their new philosophy of building their on-field product by spending big tells me they're in it in long haul. I don't think TFC will ever go back being "cheap" and being typical MLS team unless we have new ownership who doesn't care about soccer.
Renovating the City's building makes sense since the risk is spread out over a number of events they could bring in. If they truly were about TFC and it was a sustainable financial model, they would build their own. Soccer in Toronto has come and gone before and last year, it didn't look all that positive. Anyways, there is a thread for that discussion.
I agree though. They… and playoff tickets… won't likely be cheap.
Since then, TFC attendance has increased (we're 2nd overall in the league now in terms of attendance) and same could be said about their sponsorship money, so their revenue should be up. Unless you have a source to back up Vancouver position, I am going to assume they aren't in great shape like you make it out to be. TFC going to take a step further and increase their stadium capacity so they can increase their revenue even further while Vancouver not so much. So I fail to understand why Vancouver is in better position where one team is investing while other isn't (or at least not investing much). Keep in mind that Vancouver do have DP's as well, so they do have expenses (maybe not high as ours, but nevertheless, they're paying millions in total for their DP's)
Really? I don't hear much about Grey Cups and Winter Classics lately.That's an assumption that they are planning to increase capacity for TFC. If they truly were in it for the long haul they would build their own instead of renovating the City's. All we hear is Winter Classics and Grey Cups. They are increasing capacity in order to put other events into it while mitigating the financial risk.
Well TFC is main tenant who use BMO field the most, so I assume TFC were big part of why MLSE decided to renovate BMO field. I highly doubt hosting one Winter Classic game is worth all the hassle and $90 million for MLSE.Renovating the City's building makes sense since the risk is spread out over a number of events they could bring in. If they truly were about TFC and it was a sustainable financial model, they would build their own. Soccer in Toronto has come and gone before and last year, it didn't look all that positive. Anyways, there is a thread for that discussion.
I agree though. They… and playoff tickets… won't likely be cheap.
Last edited by TFC07; 08-09-2014 at 05:18 PM.
http://mlsattendance.blogspot.ca
TFC average just over 22k
Vancouver average 21k
Is July 14th recent? On the Winter Classic:Really? I don't hear much about Grey Cups and Winter Classics lately.
“Once we get BMO under construction and they see we can do 40,000 seats, then we’ll have a serious conversation,” Leiweke said. “Until we prove to the league we can do that, they’re saying, ‘Come back and see us when you’re under construction.’ I get that, and I don’t blame them.’”
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/t...p-tim-leiweke/
That's a thread in an of itself. Grey Cups, Winter Classics, International Soccer friendlies, etc. That's how you spread the risk around.Well TFC is main tenant who use BMO field the most, so I assume TFC were big part of why MLSE decided to renovate BMO field. I highly doubt hosting one Winter Classic game is worth all the hassle and $90 million for MLSE.
There is no connection between salary level and franchise value. What a business is "worth" has no bearing on what it's optimal expense/salary level should be.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
TFC payroll is $17M. Vancouver payroll is $7M. Vancouver is operating under a completely different operating philosophy. The point cannot be argued.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Your point is? Now compare their 2012 attendance to understand why I made that point. TFC attendance increase by 4.000-5,000 which a lot higher than Vancouver increase. Since Vancouver back in 2012 didn't make any money, what makes you think their position is better than TFC now who are increasing their seating capacity to get more people to go their games?
So reading a hockey column means all over the place now?Is July 14th recent? On the Winter Classic:
“Once we get BMO under construction and they see we can do 40,000 seats, then we’ll have a serious conversation,” Leiweke said. “Until we prove to the league we can do that, they’re saying, ‘Come back and see us when you’re under construction.’ I get that, and I don’t blame them.’”
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/t...p-tim-leiweke/
Yes, but TFC is ALSO reason why BMO field is expanding. TFC will end up with 30K seats end of the expansion.That's a thread in an of itself. Grey Cups, Winter Classics, International Soccer friendlies, etc. That's how you spread the risk around.
What's so hard to understand that? People question where revenue is going to come from to pay off DP's, well this one of sources (increase seating capacity).
Yes, but there's connection from investors POV. If you were to buy a franchise, would you buy Vancouver or Toronto?
So who's really in better position between those two markets when comes to soccer? There's a reason why TFC is willing to spend a lot more money on DP's than Vancouver.
Exactly, but TFC is actually investing more into their product (both on and off-field) so they can potentially make more money compare to Vancouver. If you look at 2012 numbers, TFC made money and had higher revenue than Vancouver despite having lower attendance and awful on-field product compare to Vancouver (who I believe made it to the playoffs that year). If Vancouver can't make money with 20K paying customers and plus a playoff game then how can you say they're better position than TFC?
^You seem determined to get the last word in on this, so I'll just say, TFC are not investing, they are spending.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
You know what's funny?
Arguing about which franchise is more valuable when investing in an MLS team is really about buying a share of the league. Buying a share entitles one to a seat on the Board of Governors and the Board allocates profits and losses to each team.
Vancouver and many, many other MLS teams spend a lot less and reap the same benefit of having a share in MLS. They could do nothing and still have "value" by nature of their share in MLS.
If you are talking about return on investment that teams make in the discretionary measures they have at their disposal (ie. DP salaries, coaching staff, etc) , a team can only make money via a 50% share of ticket sales and concessions, the first $1.125M of local TV revenue, 100% of friendlies and a 50% share of MLS Cup.
In terms of ROI, quite a few clubs have a higher operating income and given what TFC is putting out there in terms of cash. This year, I would wager that their operating income has dropped to one of the lowest in the league. That has to be a source of discussion within the Board of MLSE.
You're being naive if you think MLSE didn't know they will lose money this year due to DP signings when they first give Tim Leiweke money to go out and spend. However, it obvious these signings are made for the long term benefit for the team. There's obviously a plan in place to get TFC up and running and become even more profitable team in the long term.
This short term thinking some of you guys are displaying on here is reason why Toronto sports teams are so mediocre. Never heard an expression of "Short term pain, long term gain"?! This is what exactly is happening with TFC in terms of investment. TFC is spending to make money in the end.
Cripes, reducing this to "Toronto sports fan suck" blather.
TFC were always going to lose money this year. That is not the point.
The question isn't "what do I (or you) think is right?". I actually don't care about that. The question is "what are the milestones that Leiweke's bosses will use to evaluate whether TFC is tracking to plan?"
You want corporate owners to take the long-term view? They won't. They don't have that kind of time, they'll be fired before a long term plan can work. Maybe you don't like it, I can understand that, but that is the universe we live in.
I believe Leiweke's bosses live and breathe the TV ratings metric, that is the language they speak, that is where the synergy is to the larger corporate interests, and that is how this will be judged, when they decide to judge it. The ratings needle hasn't moved at all yet, which surprises me given the scale of the spending, and would worry me if I was Leiweke's boss. That is my opinion.
Last edited by ensco; 08-10-2014 at 10:08 AM.
“What the world needs is more geniuses with humility; there are so few of us left.”
Given that no one under 30 gets cable any more and Football is, in this country, a hip new thing for younger people for the most part, I'd say it would be a lot more revelatory if we knew how many were watching (both legally and illegally) online.
I haven't had cable in three years now, dude, but I haven't missed a TFC game. Same with the handful of other fans I know out here.
That's doubly true when they run it on TSN2 and Sportsnet World, neither of which come automatically with basic cable -- which, given netflix and downloading, is about all ANYONE I know subscribes to anymore.
Seriously, I have to wonder about the validity of TV numbers these days. Keep in context, too, that with TV quality now spread across dozens of channels, shows that wouldn't have been in the top 60 fifteen years ago are now considered hits.
Maybe we need to ask why the Whitecaps get TSN Main while TFC gets the buried channels? Chicken and egg?
As for the demographic assumption in Toronto, I'd love to see stats on it. The closest I can find are the Coremedia numbers that I presented earlier. These are the folks that make and market in stadium programs and they publish demographics for the Toronto teams (no Argos though).
According to them over 54% of TFC's fan base it outside the 18-34 demographic and 58% of whom are MOPES (Managers, Owners, Professionals) with an average income of $108k. That wouldn't suggest a younger demographic.
Very similar to the Raptors, over 52% are over 35 and 56% are MOPEs with an average income of over $103k.
http://www.coremedia.ca/tfc/demographics
In general, MLS is young but still about 60% of their fan base is over 35 which means 40% of their fan base is under 35.
The NBA is the youngest with 45% of their viewers under 35 while the NHL clocks in at 37% under 35.
They really aren't that different, with the exception of ethnicity in the USA.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...t-fans/283626/
Last edited by Pookie; 08-10-2014 at 11:48 AM.
Well in that case, TL's boss should be happy about new TV deal that MLS signed in the states.
Secondly, MLS is gate revenue driven league, so most of the money they will get from ticket sales. So far, TFC has been doing a great job on that front and they're planning to increase seating capacity for next year.
Lastly, TL job will be determine how Leafs and Raptors (to certain extent) do under his watch. TFC is small player in MLSE portfolio, so I don't see TL losing his job over TFC.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote