Also states that no team in the league is making money
http://www.cybersoccernews.com/mls/revs/020802Revs.shtml
Andy
Andy, to be fair, when I read the piece, I was surprised at the weight given to various issues. From your post, I thought it was going to revolve around financial questions, when it was more geared toward Rev-specific win-loss issues.
Dave, I just thought that the financial snippets would have been of interest in the B&M forum. I guess I was wrong.
I will try to be more careful about posting information in the future.
Andy
Originally posted by Andy_B
Also states that no team in the league is making money
http://www.cybersoccernews.com/mls/revs/020802Revs.shtml
Andy
That's out of context. What he said was "under the structure of the league" no team is making money. Duh. With Metro losing money by the bucketload, they lose enough to wipe out the profits of all the other teams combined. And how a team that cost 5 million to buy and 5 million a year to operate cannot be making money in a stadium he owns is beyond me.
15,000 fans times 14 games times 15 bucks equals 3.1 million dollars on ticket revenue alone. Does not include signage, concessions, parking, souvenirs, and local sponsors. Add in just 5 dollars a game per person extra on whatever else, and you add a million. 10 dollars to park 5,000 cars adds 700,000 in parking revenue.
And for Kraft, I don't care. They have more money that we'll ever see.
Are you guys on a break-even budget for this year?
Todd Smith: No. I don't think any team is, certainly not within the structure of the league.
I wonder how much the Revolution and Crew pay to companies owned or controlled by Kraft and Hunt? For all I know, CMGI charges the Patriots and Revolution a kazillion dollars in rent each year... dooming them to the red every year.
The point is, the owner's can hide the coin a hundred different ways. Only the owners know whether they're making any money. An owner telling you his team won't break even is absolutely worthless.
What I am sure of, however, is that the profits or losses of MLS and its teams are TRIVIAL compared to the net worth of the owner's.
Talk about misrepresenting an interview Andy. Ges.
First, bite me
Second, how did I misrepresent the following statement in my subject title?
The one thing that has been constant through this is that they have lost, on any scale, a tremendous amount of money to support soccer in this area.
Zune Download. -wow- Getting Hot Fast.::
Here Is You Chance, Money Maker, Y/g/msn Tracking. - - - Affiliates Go To www.PlatinumPartner.com For More Sites.
http://welcomewlc.ZUNEPRO.hop.clickbank.netHOME |
Third, really bite me.
Fourth, ************ off.
Andy
Whatever sourpuss.
Don't talk to other Big Soccer members that way. You're not untouchable you know.
You might look good in Yellow.
Talk about misrepresenting an interview Andy. Ges.
CSN: Are you guys on a break-even budget for this year?
Todd Smith: No. I don't think any team is, certainly not within the structure of the league.
Originally posted by GPK
Whatever sourpuss.
Don't talk to other Big Soccer members that way. You're not untouchable you know.
You might look good in Yellow.
Was this necessary in public?
No. I don't think any team is {on a breakeven budget}, certainly not within the structure of the league.
We've been over the idea that there's 4 ways of looking at profitable. Let's take the Crew as an example.
1. Does Lamar make money on soccer in Columbus?
2. Does Lamar make money on the Crew? (The difference between this and #1 is that #1 would include money from concerts, internationals, high school football, etc. This and #3 and #4 ONLY count MLS stuff.)
3. Do the Crew make money if you DON'T count their share of league losses?
4. Do the Crew make money if you DO count their share of league losses?
To me, the phrase "within the structure of the league" isn't in there by accident. It precludes the Crew making money by the toughest definition, #4.
I think we all knew that already.
The fact that he had to throw that phrase in there indicates, to me, that the Crew make money for Hunt by one of the other 3 definitions.
And I think we all knew that already, as well.
If anything, that phrase indicates that the loosest definition, #1, isn't necessary. To me, this is a sign that the Crew helps Hunt by definition #2 or #3.
The bottom line is, and this is all hypothetical, if the stadium makes a dollar and the soccer team loses two dollars, they're still net one-dollar loss, so it's not just about having a tenant. It's about having a tenant that makes financial sense in and of itself. To say they don't care about the wins and losses is absolutely ridiculous.
I had a hard time following this. The way the answer touches on both competitive issues and financial issues, I found confusing. I can't figure out whether he's saying the Krafts make money on the Revs (which is possible, I guess, esp. if you throw in that the USSF wouldn't give CMGI games without the Revs), but STILL aren't happy, because the team stinks. OR, is he saying the team is losing money for the Krafts (maybe including their share of league losses, and maybe not), period, and then threw in the wins and losses comment as an afterthought.
dont listen to this guy. he is a complete moron.
Well...let's take some fake data and run with it...
Revenues:
NE: +1M
Metro: -3M
DC: 0M
Clb: +1M
Chi: -3M
LA: -3M
SJ: -5M
Col: +2M
KC: -2M
Dal: -2M
----------
League: -14M/yr
49% of local expenses stay local and 51% go to league in Single Entity (and Dallas is 100% league) so...
League shared expenses: -8M/yr
Team SEM costs: -0.67M each
Bottom Line:
NE: -0.2M
Metro: -1.7M
DC: -0.7M
Clb: -0.2M
Chi: -2.2M
LA: -2.2M
SJ: -3.2M
Col: +0.3M
KC: -1.7M
Dal: -1.7M
Just hypothetical, but I'd agree that no team is in the black (maybe Colorado this year with 22K attendance and MUCH better stadium deal) when you factor in 51% of a team's bottom line is also the league's bottom line.
Don't talk to other Big Soccer members that way.
Oh I am sorry.
Please feel free to state idiotic things like "Talk about misrepresenting an interview", I am sure no one will ever call you on it.
I am still waiting to see how your interpetation of the following quote differed from what I said in the subject.
"The one thing that has been constant through this is that they have lost, on any scale, a tremendous amount of money to support soccer in this area."
You might look good in Yellow.
And you already look like a fool so I guess we are even.
Andy
If that's the focus you want to make on the article fine.
Why would you focus on anything else in a B&M forum????????????????????????????????
You are not making any sense here.
For years we have been posting articles that have small snippets of finacial information in them. And you choose now to say that I misrepresented the article?????
I can't for the life of me figure out what your problem is with me posting this article which had a couple of snippets about business.
I never said the article was all business, you assumed that, which is your fault, not mine.
You had absolutely no reason to say I misrepresented the article knowing the history of this board.
You both started this and you are wrong IMO.
And Chad, great of you to focus on my simple statement that to focus on someone telling a fellow member to ************ off.
Gee, do you think that is because you deserved it?
Andy
Andy, to be fair, when I read the piece, I was surprised at the weight given to various issues. From your post, I thought it was going to revolve around financial questions, when it was more geared toward Rev-specific win-loss issues.
Thanks for the link, Andy.
"...certainly not within the structure of the league" is an interesting phrase. I'll let others parse that every which way they want.
Calm down, everyone. You guys know better.
Andy was just passing on what Todd Smith said about the Revs' business side in an article that did deal with mostly on-the-field issues. It's up to everyone for themselves to decide whether Smith is speaking the gospel truth or whether nadpolice9 is right.
The "Good News Fairy" has arrived. ;)
Thanks for the link. :)
2,423 word article.
"The one thing that has been constant through this is that they have lost, on any scale, a tremendous amount of money to support soccer in this area."
28 words.
"No. I don't think any team is, certainly not within the structure of the league. We're trying our best to close the gap, and we'll see what the future holds for us."
32 words.
The rest did not mention money or losses. If that's the focus you want to make on the article fine. For me, it is a complete misrepresentation. I'd read that article before and expected a total different link. The article was a reaction to the badering that Todd got from Gus Martins and the people on the Revs board. He was looking for sympathy by mentioning those "facts".
But fine. Tell me to bite you and ************ off and that I'm an idiot. Great. Very inappropriate.
And Chad, great of you to focus on my simple statement that to focus on someone telling a fellow member to ************ off.
Business is also the operations of an organization. That was discussed alot.
My one line statement was probably over the top. I should have writen more, but got caught up with something at work.
I think its a shame that Todd chose that forum to share that information because I think he was looking for sympathy.
IMO, there was alot more to the article, that's all.
My statement wasn't meant to turn your screws, that's for sure.
 I Am a Sinner – What About You?
 Global Sourcing and Supplier Online by Dylan
|
Revs GM statesKrafts have lost a ton of money on soccer