XFL 2020 Season

[Sykotyk]

3 hours ago, Brass said:

 

I'm far from an Ohioan (I visited Cleveland once) but would a successful team in Columbus be able to draw disheartened Browns and Bengals fans? 

Sadly, there's more bandwagon Steelers fans in Columbus than probably Browns or Bengals fans. Realize this: Ohio State is #1 in all sports all year in Columbus. Crew and Blue Jackets play second fiddle. There is never a time when any Ohio State news is secondary.

 

Yes, Mapfre may be open by 2020, but there's a chance it's torn down by 2020 as well if it's dismantled and sold. So, there's a good chance that isn't an option. And Ohio Stadium isn't an option theoretically. Yes, they've rented it out in the past. But the cost is going to be ridiculous. There isn't any mid-sized stadium suitable other than Mapfre.

 

Akron or Canton would be the best Ohio location. Both have first-class venues that seat 30,000 and well within the Northeast Ohio market to draw from the entire region. Akron especially being between Cleveland, Canton, and less than an hour west of Youngstown.

 

Personally, I'd steer clear of directly competing with NFL markets for an support outside 2 or 3 of the 'major media markets'. And even then I'd stick to stadiums outside the major NFL venues. So, places like NEO outside Cleveland, Louisville, Orlando, Birmingham, St. Louis, San Antonio, San Diego, Oakland, Portland, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Hartford (New England), Syracuse, etc.

 

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

But who decides if/when a team relocates?  Could a team be doing pretty well, but then the league board just decide that they want to be in another market and decide to move it?  I guess I don't get how you have "owners" if the teams are owned by the league and are basically just "departments" or "cost centers".

 

MLS has had one relocation in its entire existence. That being San Jose (original) Earthquakes moved to Houston. The basic realization was that San Jose was not getting a new stadium (they played at a small college venue) that was bleeding them and it was around the time the league was moving toward soccer-specific stadiums. The operator wasn't ever going to see a profit playing there. So, decided to move. And found a home in Houston. League allowed it but wasn't exactly thrilled. Got San Jose another team not too many years later.

 

Only three other teams 'failed' in MLS: Tampa Bay Mutiny, Miami Fusion (both lost to contraction) and CD Chivas USA (a horrible mistake by MLS to ever award that team).

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

But who decides if/when a team relocates?  Could a team be doing pretty well, but then the league board just decide that they want to be in another market and decide to move it?  I guess I don't get how you have "owners" if the teams are owned by the league and are basically just "departments" or "cost centers".

 

It’s like a co-op.  Instead of owning a franchise, each owner owns a percentage of the league, which contains the right to operate the franchise.  Like my apartment building is a co-op.  Common in NYC housing, which might be why I don’t see any problem with the model.

 

Frankly, I think the “single-entity” thing is way overblown where MLS is concerned. Yes, the league owns each player contact instead of the individual teams. But that’s more a technicality than anything else, since teams scout and sign and sell their own players. The league just gets a measure of veto power and a percentage of the profits. Other than that, it’s not dissimilar to the franchise model of the NFL, just with different regulations.

 

Every league exercises its control over “owners” in a way that no other business would recognize. Such as who they can sell to. What kinds of media contracts they can sell. And approval over branding.  

 

But no, owners still control their clubs. And MLS cannot force owners to move their teams. Any more than MLB or the NFL.  

[TheOldRoman]

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 7:41 PM, Gothamite said:

 

Are there any significant numbers of fans who have stopped following the NFL, though?  That the XFL could pull away?  I really don’t know. 

 

Because they do actually have to pull fans away. Discretionary income is not infinite, and football fans already have many places to spend it. The XFL will have to convince at least some of them to take money they would spend on college or pro football and spend it on the XFL instead.

 

They're taking money, but it's on a micro level. We assume there will be teams in big markets like Chicago, LA and New York. And those cities are big enough that it should be no issue at all to draw 35,000+ five times a year if the product is respectable. There are enough people in those cities that it shouldn't be a problem of discretionary income being split too many ways. The other places they'll put teams are cities which don't have pro franchises, and I would guess most of those aren't already supporting top level college teams. The ticket prices will obviously be a fraction of NFL prices, and they won't have the issue teams like the Jaguars have of needing corporate sponsorship in the form of shelling out over $100,000 a year for luxury boxes, because nobody's paying that to the XFL for a really long time. 

 

Most of us don't go to NFL games, and the only money we give to the NFL is through advertising revenue generated by us watching. Ratings will obviously be a fraction of what the NFL pulls, but so will payroll, so the threshold is much lower. If they can get a decent TV contract, they have a puncher's chance of surviving. Like I said, I believe a lot of this hinges on ESPN. There's a good chance they will be dropping their NFL package in 2020, along with possibly NCAA football and NBA eventually. They don't have the subscriber base anymore to pay these astronomical deals to top leagues. So maybe they pick up the XFL dirt cheap to fill time in the spring and give it another pro league to justify it being the "worldwide leader." Put on the XFL and hype it up with even a quarter of the blowjobbing they give to the NFL, If that happens, I think ESPN is plenty powerful enough to get people to care about the product.

 

The XFL is already decently high profile based on the notoriety and infamy which comes with McMahon. Everybody knew about the previous XFL and its failure. I'd guess fewer than 5% of NFL fans have even heard of the UFL. I wouldn't have if one of my high school teammates wasn't playing in it. So obviously, ESPN's interest in buying in/building up a league like that would have been much lower. It's a lot easier for them to make headway with a league like that than the UFL. Also, if Vince is this driven to atone for his past failures, maybe he can draw in ESPN as an investor and give them part of the league. But of course, they have to take the league seriously this time around and put out a decent product.

[BBTV]

54 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

It’s like a co-op.  Instead of owning a franchise, each owner owns a percentage of the league, which contains the right to operate the franchise.  Like my apartment building is a co-op.  Common in NYC housing, which might be why I don’t see any problem with the model.

 

Frankly, I think the “single-entity” thing is way overblown where MLS is concerned. Yes, the league owns each player contact instead of the individual teams. But that’s more a technicality than anything else, since teams scout and sign and sell their own players. The league just gets a measure of veto power and a percentage of the profits. Other than that, it’s not dissimilar to the franchise model of the NFL, just with different regulations.

 

Every league exercises its control over “owners” in a way that no other business would recognize. Such as who they can sell to. What kinds of media contracts they can sell. And approval over branding.  

 

But no, owners still control their clubs. And MLS cannot force owners to move their teams. Any more than MLB or the NFL.  

 

I'm familiar with co-ops, we have them here too.  Couldn't buy into one once I saw all the regulations (and realized how much lower the appreciation was compared to traditional condos.)  I didn't realize that about the league though.  I thought it was a single business entity that basically assigned managers to departments that were located in various cities.

 

 

Like a bank that's headquartered in Delaware but has branches in Philadelphia, NYC, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, etc.  

 

Do we know the XFL is following that model?  I assume Vince would like it because he gets investors to reduce his stake / risk, but he'd hate it because he'd want 100% control over everything.  I'd think he'd just want to own the whole thing and manage it like the bank model, shutting down branches that aren't profitable, or shifting them at will to new markets where they could succeed.

 

[Gothamite]

No, we don’t know anything about his business model. The press conference was extremely light on details.

 

Co-ops and Condos are both equally valid models for housing. One works better for some buyers, the other better for others.

 

But really, I don’t see how the single-entity model of MLS is all that different from the franchise model of the NFL. Aside from the league technically owning all the player contracts, granted. But watching them build NYCFC, it started with City Football Group (the majority owner) hiring Claudio Reyna as director of football. That wasn’t the league, that was CFG. Reyna then hired Jason Kreis as head coach, and the two went out and built the roster.  When everyone was displeased with the first season’s results, Reyna fired Kreis.  Maybe that was his call, maybe it came down from CFG, but it sure didn’t come from the league.   And then they hired Patrick Vieira in his place, who came from CFG’s system.  Again,  the league was not involved in those decisions.  Just like my co-op board has to approve major renovations to my apartment, but can’t tell me where to put the couch or what kind of appliances to buy.

 

Teams run their own operations, under regulations set down by the league.  The league may control certain facets, but again that is not dissimilar to either the NFL or MLB.

[BBTV]

So then what’s the point? Is it that “the league” decision makers are independent from the teams rather than the NFL which is essentially run by the teams?

[dfwabel]

5 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

So then what’s the point? Is it that “the league” decision makers are independent from the teams rather than the NFL which is essentially run by the teams?

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/01/26/xfl-single-entity-sports-leagues-advantages-drawbacks

 

Quote

There are many advantages for the XFL in operating as a single entity. First, a centralized structure allows the XFL to function in an efficient and controlling manner. The league can design policies with the entire XFL’s interests in mind and can then implement those policies unilaterally. There will be no XFL team owners who might object to the XFL for self-interested or factional reasons. If the XFL endorses a certain organizational culture, XFL teams will have no choice but to follow it.

 

Second, there will be operational cost savings for the XFL. Business, marketing and legal positions in the XFL headquarters could largely run individual teams’ operations. In contrast, NFL teams employ fairly extensive staffs for their operations.

 

Third, a single-entity league like the XFL is more transferable than a league of 32 different ownership groups. Think of it this way: If the XFL and its eight teams succeed as a business, McMahon could sell them all as one asset. In contrast, it would be extremely difficult to convince 32 separate NFL owners to agree to “sell the NFL.”

 

Fourth, there is a significant legal benefit in operating as a single entity—the XFL will not be subject to Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Under Section 1, competing businesses are forbidden from conspiring or colluding in ways that unreasonably harm competition. The major four pro leagues have each been challenged, with varying levels of success, on Section 1 grounds. Leagues are vulnerable to Section 1 claims because those leagues feature individually owned teams that are competing businesses. Section 1 lawsuits are threatening in that if they are successful, they lead to treble (triple) damages.

 

[BBTV]

Thanks. Doesn’t sound like a coop to me. 

[The_Admiral]

6 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Yes exactly. I was thinking of the wrestling model too. There used to be a bunch of different wrestling organizations that all serviced their specific niche region until WWF bought them and consolidated into one big massive entity. 

 

The WWF didn't buy the territories, Vince just decided to encroach on everybody else's. Jim Crockett Promotions (Virginia, Carolinas) bought the NWA members in Georgia, Florida, Mid-South, and Dallas to combine them into something that could compete nationally, then that would become WCW, which the WWF eventually bought, so I guess you were right.

 

This argument over single entity and MLS reminds me of when the clown guys finally bought the Phoenix Coyotes and bragged "we're not really buying the Coyotes, we're investing in one-thirtieth of the National Hockey League." I guess it was a bad investment because they ran out of money and had to sell the team to some finance guy from Philly who'd been sniffing around the Islanders for like ten years, oops.

[Gothamite]

13 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Thanks. Doesn’t sound like a coop to me. 

 

What sounds different to you?

 

[BBTV]

9 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

What sounds different to you?

 

 

The transferrable part, that Vince could just sell the whole thing. If it was coop, everyone would own a piece and have a say in that, and also you could make the argument that they are competing businesses. 

[Gothamite]

11 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The transferrable part, that Vince could just sell the whole thing. If it was coop, everyone would own a piece and have a say in that, and also you could make the argument that they are competing businesses. 

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

This proposed single-entity model is unlike MLS's single-entity in that way.  MLS has a hundred shareholders, while the XFL will apparently have only one.

[MJWalker45]

Looking at LAFC's new model for showing home games, I think this is the model that Vince is considering for the league. Probably not blacking out viewers in or away from the cities the game are shown, but teaming up with YouTube, Amazon, Facebook or another new technology that pops up between now and the first kick. 

 

"Launched last April, YouTube TV is a $35 per month subscription service that’s available online and on mobile devices in 80 metro areas in the US. It features programming from nearly 50 channels, ESPN and FOX Sports, as well as local over-the-air channels.

The service will be the exclusive home for all locally televised English-language LAFC matches, and will also carry all LAFC’s nationally-televised matches aired on ESPN, FOX and FS1. Under the partnership, all locally broadcast LAFC gams will be shown on a designated YouTube TV channel. The deal also includes original LAFC programming and content and 30-minute pre- and post-game shows from the YouTube TV set at Banc of California Stadium."

[Gothamite]

I’d pay $35 for an NYCFC channel like that. 

[Mac the Knife]

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

This proposed single-entity model is unlike MLS's single-entity in that way.  MLS has a hundred shareholders, while the XFL will apparently have only one.

 

Major League Soccer, if memory serves, is an LLC in which its franchise holders are actually members of the limited liability company, each with a vote and an equal share of the collective proceeds of the league and its larger, far more profitable subsidiary, Soccer United Marketing.

 

The original XFL was an LLC that was owned 50/50 between WWE and NBC.

 

The new XFL is going to be solely owned by Alpha Entertainment, LLC (and thus, Vince McMahon), and I don't see that fundamentally changing.  He may take on limited partners, but there won't be anyone capable of shutting the enterprise down but Vince McMahon.

 

On 1/31/2018 at 4:29 PM, AstroBull21 said:

6 teams in the South could be:

 

Orlando

Memphis

Birmingham

Raleigh

Norfolk/Virginia Beach

Louisville???

 

You can scratch Raleigh off that list.  Trying to put a pro football team here other than one from the NFL would be business suicide.  From a spectator and public interest perspective, this area is about college basketball first, minor league baseball second (which is why I say MLB should place a team here), hockey third, and non-NFL football fourth.

[BBTV]

18 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

The new XFL is going to be solely owned by Alpha Entertainment, LLC (and thus, Vince McMahon), and I don't see that fundamentally changing.  He may take on limited partners, but there won't be anyone capable of shutting the enterprise down but Vince McMahon.

 

And due to that, I"m not sure how I could feel any local attachment to a branch that's based in my area.  It's kinda like rooting for your local target to sell more Champion C9 sports bras than Chicago's Target.

 

Now that I understand MLS's model, I can get behind that.  As a non-fan, I'm a fan.  I totally get why Vince has it set up this way, and I'm sure I'm in the minority in my views, but I think I'd just end up being skeptical of every "local' event they did and feel like they're just some faceless arm of a faceless (well, actually Vince's face) corporation.

[dfwabel]

7 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

And due to that, I"m not sure how I could feel any local attachment to a branch that's based in my area.  It's kinda like rooting for your local target to sell more Champion C9 sports bras than Chicago's Target.

 

Now that I understand MLS's model, I can get behind that.  As a non-fan, I'm a fan.  I totally get why Vince has it set up this way, and I'm sure I'm in the minority in my views, but I think I'd just end up being skeptical of every "local' event they did and feel like they're just some faceless arm of a faceless (well, actually Vince's face) corporation.

In taking questions last week, Vince indicated that players were to be paid enough that they should consider themselves "full time". Since the former league capped out at $55K before winning bonuses for QBs and $45K for non kickers, we could safely double those. The coaches will be paid more, but the number of ancillary, non-football staff is undetermined, like will there be a local sales team? will ticketing be handed centrally?...

[BBTV]

Just now, dfwabel said:

In taking questions last week, Vince indicated that players were to be paid enough that they should consider themselves "full time". Since the former league capped out at $55K before winning bonuses for QBs and $45K for non kickers, we could safely double those. The coaches will be paid more, but the number of ancillary, non-football staff is undetermined, like will there be a local sales team? will ticketing be handed centrally?...

 

Short of a local facility for practicing, medical treatment (there will be medical staff, right?), coaches offices, and other football related activities, it wouldn't make any sense for them to not do everything centrally.  It wouldn't even surprise me if "community outreach" things were all similar in each city, and coordinated by ham-and-eggers in some office in Omaha that can't even pronounce the names of the organizations they're trying to set the teams up with for volunteering photo ops.

[The_Admiral]

It's Vince McMahon, not only will everything be run out of Stamford, Vince himself will be meddling in everyone's jobs.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, dfwabel said:

In taking questions last week, Vince indicated that players were to be paid enough that they should consider themselves "full time". Since the former league capped out at $55K before winning bonuses for QBs and $45K for non kickers, we could safely double those.

 

Why do you think that’s a safe bet?  $45,000 qualifies as a full-time wage in a lot of the country. Median household income in the US was just over $59,000 in 2016.

 

I could see McMahon either holding steady on the old salaries or bumping them up a bit.  But doubling?  When he’s the only one fronting the costs?  I don’t know why we should think that.