2015 Offseason Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ulrich said:
Garber's idea of growing the league is increasing the number of teams and cashing the entry fee payment. The problem with increasing the quantity of teams quickly is that the quality of domestic player pool will be diminished. This would not be a problem if more talented foreigners could be brought in, but that's not possible when there are some old guard owners that don't have deep pockets, so they're not in favor of raising the cap.

NYCFC would definitely benefit from this loan deal..... but the F'ing league can't see the forest through the trees and realize the league would benefit too - EVERY team that hosted NYCFC saw their best attendance numbers for the season, and that's because fans wanted to see the stars on our roster. MLS just needs to face it that the league needs a team or two that has such star quality that fans will pay for one more home game just to see them or spend a little extra cash for merchandise. And more important than that, star teams bring in higher TV ratings and THAT'S where the real money is for the league. Yet, viewership has to go way up before MLS gets the TV contracts that will drive the league, and the casual fan will only tune in to a mid-season game if they recognize the names and pedigree. I swear Garber doesn't realize or acknowledge this.
Click to expand...
I dont think the addition of Demichelis is going to add many seats on the road. I know he's a really nice player, but lets not act like he's Villa, Lampard, or Pirlo.
 
Ulrich said:
Garber's idea of growing the league is increasing the number of teams and cashing the entry fee payment. The problem with increasing the quantity of teams quickly is that the quality of domestic player pool will be diminished. This would not be a problem if more talented foreigners could be brought in, but that's not possible when there are some old guard owners that don't have deep pockets, so they're not in favor of raising the cap.

NYCFC would definitely benefit from this loan deal..... but the F'ing league can't see the forest through the trees and realize the league would benefit too - EVERY team that hosted NYCFC saw their best attendance numbers for the season, and that's because fans wanted to see the stars on our roster. MLS just needs to face it that the league needs a team or two that has such star quality that fans will pay for one more home game just to see them or spend a little extra cash for merchandise. And more important than that, star teams bring in higher TV ratings and THAT'S where the real money is for the league. Yet, viewership has to go way up before MLS gets the TV contracts that will drive the league, and the casual fan will only tune in to a mid-season game if they recognize the names and pedigree. I swear Garber doesn't realize or acknowledge this.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. The league is being held back by the poor original owners. I disagree with someone in a previous posting that there are limited rich owners who are willing to splurge. I think there are plenty of them to be had in the US market. The allure of booming soccer market in the US is just too big, especially for foreign owners. I am more than willing to dump the old owners and attract (i don't care where the owners come from) a crop of new owners who will spend freely. we need 4-5 of them to get the market going. F the original owners and the MLS as is...just because they are relatively poor does not mean we all have to suffer along with them. If MLS is not willing to let a preeminent club to spend freely, time to break the ranks and form a new league where only the riches are allowed to play. BTW, i wish all the US leagues were run by business savvy people instead of lawyers...but guess that's too much to wish for.
 
mgarbowski said:
I find this somewhat surprising. The original owners presumably suffered the greatest operating losses, but they have also pocketed the most expansion fees, which is how the league earns most of its money. Did the original gang lose that much that the cumulative expansion fees have not put them in the black, even a little?
Click to expand...
If there's one thing I've learned from watching stadium negotiations, it's that sports teams always lose money when they need to show they've lost money.
 
Kjbert said:
Garber does represent the owners. There is a rift between the new owners and the original owners. The original owners are still in the hole. The new owners have profitable franchises that have gone up in value.
Click to expand...
The original owners have team that have massively gone up in value - if for no other reason than CFG making the going rate to buy-in $100M. Throw in stadium/practice facility deeds, and the original owners have a lot of value in their pockets.
 
Ulrich said:
The original owners have team that have massively gone up in value - if for no other reason than CFG making the going rate to buy-in $100M. Throw in stadium/practice facility deeds, and the original owners have a lot of value in their pockets.
Click to expand...


Of course the values have gone up. Doesn't mean they have monetized that valuation. If the Krafts paid $1 Million for their franchise, and have lost another $50Million over the past 20 years, it doesn't matter if the franchise is worth $100 Million now. It's a paper gain until they sell it. If they enjoy owning the franchise and have no interest in selling, then who cares if the value is twice what they pumped in? They are still losing money annually.
 
Kjbert said:
Of course the values have gone up. Doesn't mean they have monetized that valuation. If the Krafts paid $1 Million for their franchise, and have lost another $50Million over the past 20 years, it doesn't matter if the franchise is worth $100 Million now. It's a paper gain until they sell it. If they enjoy owning the franchise and have no interest in selling, then who cares if the value is twice what they pumped in? They are still losing money annually.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree there. The team valuation is real and that money can be accessed with secured loans without selling the team. Just like your house, you can borrow cheaply against its value.
 
Tom in Fairfield CT said:
I have to disagree there. The team valuation is real and that money can be accessed with secured loans without selling the team. Just like your house, you can borrow cheaply against its value.
Click to expand...
exactly, spot on. NY did a favor for the whole league. It's just like a new mansion built on the block. existing residents may be complaining and annoyed, but the entire blocks value has gone up. so quit whining the rest of the league, let NYCFC spend!!!
 
Gotham Gator said:
This is all true, but you have to believe that CFG thought they had a way to bring him in under the rules. They aren't fresh off the pickle barrel. They know what the limits are. Perhaps they wanted to redo and lengthen his contract or switch more than one player or something and thought it would work but still got shot down.
Click to expand...

NOT HATING ... but I know full well that CFG were incredibly surprised with just how ... limiting ... MLS roster rules were. This was late 2013. And that is acceptable. And they are better today than they were. But. They were surprised.

As for the parent-to-satellite loan deal, I would be imagined they werent aware either since it isn't explicitly detailed (or wasnt at the time). But that has been an MLS rule since the Chivas days.

And anyone -- including ME -- who says they have a grasp on MLS rules is either lying or an MLS employee. Socialist rules are NOT easy to understand in a competitive market place.
 
Last point ... Roy Miller and Walter Restrepo would be HUGE additions for NYCFC. Immediately ups their quality on the flanks. I know that won't be a popular opinion ... but I stand by it.
 
Tom in Fairfield CT said:
I have to disagree there. The team valuation is real and that money can be accessed with secured loans without selling the team. Just like your house, you can borrow cheaply against its value.
Click to expand...


Bad answer. Piling debt on isn't the same as free cash flow. Yes the values have gone up. Yes you can access capital against the value of the franchise. But it's not the same as cash flow. Securitized lines like that are best used for capital improvements. Not for "spending."
 
MacMath back to Philly. Looks like they're going to have another glut in the GK department.
 
Kjbert said:
Bad answer. Piling debt on isn't the same as free cash flow. Yes the values have gone up. Yes you can access capital against the value of the franchise. But it's not the same as cash flow. Securitized lines like that are best used for capital improvements. Not for "spending."
Click to expand...
Agreed. I would add that it's especially true where the underlying asset is currently experiencing operating losses, as MLS is (at least according to public statements). That debt has to be paid. And if the business is not generating sufficient cash flow, then the only way to pay will eventually be (1) paying out of pocket, which destroys the whole point of the loan in the first place, or (2) selling the team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top