2018 Forbes MLS Valuations

ferrarinycfc

Registered
Dec 6, 2014
1,580
1,937
193
49
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriss...ource=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#46a29e12ee99

List in Millions of Dollars.

1. Atlanta United 330
2. LA Galaxy 320
3. Seattle Sounders 310
4. LAFC 305
5. Toronto FC 290
6. Portland Timbers 280
7. New York City FC 278
8. Orlando City SC 275
9. Sporting Kansas City 270
10. D.C. United 265
11. New York Red Bulls 250
12. Minnesota United 248
13. Chicago Fire 245
14. San Jose Earthquakes 235
15. New England Revolution 225
16. Houston Dynamo 220
17. FC Dallas 190
18. Philadelphia Union 175
19. Real Salt Lake 170
20. Montreal Impact 168
21. Vancouver Whitecaps 165
22. Columbus Crew 160
23. Colorado Rapids 155
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rimil
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriss...ource=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#46a29e12ee99

List in Millions of Dollars.

1. Atlanta United 330
2. LA Galaxy 320
3. Seattle Sounders 310
4. LAFC 305
5. Toronto FC 290
6. Portland Timbers 280
7. New York City FC 278
8. Orlando City SC 275
9. Sporting Kansas City 270
10. D.C. United 265
11. New York Red Bulls 250
12. Minnesota United 248
13. Chicago Fire 245
14. San Jose Earthquakes 235
15. New England Revolution 225
16. Houston Dynamo 220
17. FC Dallas 190
18. Philadelphia Union 175
19. Real Salt Lake 170
20. Montreal Impact 168
21. Vancouver Whitecaps 165
22. Columbus Crew 160
23. Colorado Rapids 155
Pretty lame for RB considering they have a valuable new(ish) stadium...... whats their intangible value negative?
 
Pretty lame for RB considering they have a valuable new(ish) stadium...... whats their intangible value negative?


"Note: All figures are Forbes estimates; team values do not include stadiums or real estate. Revenue and operating income are for 2017 season, and operating income is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
"Note: All figures are Forbes estimates; team values do not include stadiums or real estate. Revenue and operating income are for 2017 season, and operating income is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. "
pffft who's got time to read words in an article. I exclusively learn through info graphics and FB posts.
 
But remember, they technically don't own their stadium, they lease it from the Hudson County Improvement Authority.
 
The more you read...

giphy.gif
 
But remember, they technically don't own their stadium, they lease it from the Hudson County Improvement Authority.
Still, their lease would have value probably equal to or higher than the stadium itself.

But, as the article said, it's not included. What is included across the board is SUM, which HAD a $2b valuation two years ago. The SUM stake is probably worth over $100m per club right now.
 
RB higher than i'd think without the stadium
 
"Note: All figures are Forbes estimates; team values do not include stadiums or real estate. Revenue and operating income are for 2017 season, and operating income is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. "

Motherfin EBITDA. I come here to get away from her and she just keeps popping up.
 
The bigger issue is that without stadiums being included, were still only #7 which is mid table. A newer club one year in (not named ATL) is even worth more, as are teams in smaller markets.

Revenue went up as did expenses for a larger output/divide since last year - besides the training facility, what’s making that drain - it sure isn’t a big DP salary???
 
The bigger issue is that without stadiums being included, were still only #7 which is mid table. A newer club one year in (not named ATL) is even worth more, as are teams in smaller markets.

Revenue went up as did expenses for a larger output/divide since last year - besides the training facility, what’s making that drain - it sure isn’t a big DP salary???
The real estate value of stadiums is not included, but having a stadium generally is beneficial to revenue and operating costs, which does drive a lot of the Forbes figures. That NYC is 7th (which I consider top third more than mid-table) without that benefit is pretty good, I think. As for increased expenses, maybe the YS lease terms went up. Maybe we're paying higher "fees" for CFG scouting. We've added one additional Academy level each of the last 5 years so that has gotten more expensive. Could be a lot of things.
 
The bigger issue is that without stadiums being included, were still only #7 which is mid table. A newer club one year in (not named ATL) is even worth more, as are teams in smaller markets.

Revenue went up as did expenses for a larger output/divide since last year - besides the training facility, what’s making that drain - it sure isn’t a big DP salary???

1. We lost a lot of STHs, especially in the premium seating (obvious on match days). That trend will only continue.

2. We used to have 4 of the top 10 selling jerseys (Villa, Frank, Pirlo, Mix). http://www.soccer365.com/top-20-selling-mls-jerseys-2015/

Now we have Villa #7 (figures) is our only one in the top 25. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018...movic-tops-list-best-selling-mls-jerseys-2018

3. We're being out-shadowed right now in the metro area by NJ and their success.

ETA: 4. We have yet to sell off any players to Europe.
 
The real estate value of stadiums is not included, but having a stadium generally is beneficial to revenue and operating costs, which does drive a lot of the Forbes figures. That NYC is 7th (which I consider top third more than mid-table) without that benefit is pretty good, I think. As for increased expenses, maybe the YS lease terms went up. Maybe we're paying higher "fees" for CFG scouting. We've added one additional Academy level each of the last 5 years so that has gotten more expensive. Could be a lot of things.
I haven't really delved into the whole CFG thing in the other thread, so this may already be in there, but I wouldn't be surprised if NYCFC was participating in higher CFG "fees" and lower CFG revenues than MCFC to help with FFP stuff.

It is also possible that that's not happening at all and I'm talking out of my ass. But I'm sure that would be something that CFG would be attempting to do because they have every incentive to do so and no incentives to not.
 
The real estate value of stadiums is not included, but having a stadium generally is beneficial to revenue and operating costs, which does drive a lot of the Forbes figures. That NYC is 7th (which I consider top third more than mid-table) without that benefit is pretty good, I think. As for increased expenses, maybe the YS lease terms went up. Maybe we're paying higher "fees" for CFG scouting. We've added one additional Academy level each of the last 5 years so that has gotten more expensive. Could be a lot of things.
If renting YS is going up/has gone up, then there’s a fundamental issue involved with what it means to be a stake holding owner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
I've jumped on the EBITDAR bandwagon, to be honest.

Yeah, we shouldn't factor in rent (or are you referring to restructuring) because Forbes isn't considering real estate.

But, EBITDAT is better for football.