Gothamite

North American Pro Soccer 2019

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, mr.negative15 said:

 

I think you made this as a tongue in cheek comment but I really think there is something to take away from this. Yeah, it's still early in the season. Very early in fact, so maybe I'm jumping the gun here.

 

But, if we see Atlanta struggle in the MLS season while focusing on the CCL run, I think there's more than enough proof at this point that the roster construction rules need to be revisited. MLS' best teams just can't seem to compete in both the CCL and the league and I think it's fair to say MLS really wants one of their clubs to win the CCL.

 

I'd also argue that, even those most of us on this thread understand the rules to constructing a team in MLS (with TAM, GAM, DPs, Internationals spots, Homegrown, ect) most people don't get it. I honestly don't know how much of a difference that makes to general interest but I have to imagine that it doesn't help.

 

Look, I'm not one of those guys who says "just let them spend whatever they want". Despite my club being owned by an organization who could afford to spend a lot, it doesn't make financial sense and you want to have some level of competitiveness for the casuals fans but the depth needs to start getting better across the board. 

 

Good points. Also, Atlanta has a new coach, new system and new everything. And given Almiron's immediate EPL success, clearly he was a big loss.

 

I heard on the Total Soccer Show podcast that there are some within the league who would prefer reverting to two DPs and TAM to develop rosters, in large part to keep the Columbuses from being left behind. I think that's terrible, and lowest common denominator regulation that stilts the potential of the league.

 

In order for more teams to have more money, the league needs more TV money. We're years away from billion dollar MLS TV deals, but we'd be closer if Messi and Ronaldo were playing in New York and LA now, instead of five years from now.

 

I think expanding to four DPs is the better path forward. It would lead to LA, Toronto, Atlanta and Seattle running the league, but I think we're on our way to that anyway.

 

MLS values continue to grow. If owners can't compete, maybe they should sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DG_Now said:

 

I think expanding to four DPs is the better path forward. It would lead to LA, Toronto, Atlanta and Seattle running the league, but I think we're on our way to that anyway.

 

MLS values continue to grow. If owners can't compete, maybe they should sell.

The problem with this is that MLS requires teams to spend money somewhere else if they don't have 3 DPs. If you add a 4th that rule will probably still exist and teams like Columbus, Minnesota and Kansas City will fall further back unless they strike gold in their scouting or academy. The LA, New York teams and Miami would move away from everyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

The problem with this is that MLS requires teams to spend money somewhere else if they don't have 3 DPs. If you add a 4th that rule will probably still exist and teams like Columbus, Minnesota and Kansas City will fall further back unless they strike gold in their scouting or academy. The LA, New York teams and Miami would move away from everyone else.  

 

I understand that. The goal should be to get a TV deal such that those teams can afford to invest in their product. And you can't get a TV deal until you have something more people want to see. It's a Catch 22, for sure.

 

On the other hand, while Toronto won with a DP-heavy team, Atlanta won with exciting, young talent, which is quickly becoming the future of the league. DPs aren't necessary to win. But they sure do help with visibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

 

I understand that. The goal should be to get a TV deal such that those teams can afford to invest in their product. And you can't get a TV deal until you have something more people want to see. It's a Catch 22, for sure.

 

On the other hand, while Toronto won with a DP-heavy team, Atlanta won with exciting, young talent, which is quickly becoming the future of the league. DPs aren't necessary to win. But they sure do help with visibility.

At the end of the day it's the same issue Millwall has that Chelsea or Tottenham does not. It's a lot easier to get DPs to come into teams that are in cities that fit their lifestyle AND can win trophies at the level they are at. If Messi has the options of San Jose, New York or Miami, he's probably taking Miami first and New York second. I guess MLS trying to get all of the clubs to buy into one league wide broadcast project would help keep things even-ish, but those local deals still need to be made for when Minnesota only gets two games a year because they play a big name team or big name star. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

At the end of the day it's the same issue Millwall has that Chelsea or Tottenham does not. It's a lot easier to get DPs to come into teams that are in cities that fit their lifestyle AND can win trophies at the level they are at. If Messi has the options of San Jose, New York or Miami, he's probably taking Miami first and New York second. I guess MLS trying to get all of the clubs to buy into one league wide broadcast project would help keep things even-ish, but those local deals still need to be made for when Minnesota only gets two games a year because they play a big name team or big name star.  

 

The NFL gets about $7 billion/year in TV revenue. I'm not sure exactly how that breaks down per team, but this 2014 article says each team got $187 million in TV revenue. That's outside of any local deals, merchandise, stadium revenue, whatever. $187 million just for owning and fielding a team. In 2014, the NFL salary cap was $133 million per team, meaning each team didn't need any of those other revenue streams to be able to pay for player salary and presumably the cost of coaching and front-end staff ($50 million goes a long way, even if a handful of guys are drawing million-dollar salaries.)

 

MLS gets $90 million per year from its US TV partners through 2022, or, at absolute best, $3 million per team. MLS salary cap for 2018 was $4 million, which, as you know, requires teams to use their own resources to fund the on-field product.

 

There's a long way to go from $3 million to $187 million. Getting that TV deal to grant teams $10 million/year would have a huge effect on the on-field product. Again, it's a chicken or egg deal, but I feel like in the short term, you can sell a lot more Zlatan than you can whoever is playing for Philadelphia this year. So we should have more Zlatan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

 

The NFL gets about $7 billion/year in TV revenue. I'm not sure exactly how that breaks down per team, but this 2014 article says each team got $187 million in TV revenue. That's outside of any local deals, merchandise, stadium revenue, whatever. $187 million just for owning and fielding a team. In 2014, the NFL salary cap was $133 million per team, meaning each team didn't need any of those other revenue streams to be able to pay for player salary and presumably the cost of coaching and front-end staff ($50 million goes a long way, even if a handful of guys are drawing million-dollar salaries.)

 

MLS gets $90 million per year from its US TV partners through 2022, or, at absolute best, $3 million per team. MLS salary cap for 2018 was $4 million, which, as you know, requires teams to use their own resources to fund the on-field product.

 

There's a long way to go from $3 million to $187 million. Getting that TV deal to grant teams $10 million/year would have a huge effect on the on-field product. Again, it's a chicken or egg deal, but I feel like in the short term, you can sell a lot more Zlatan than you can whoever is playing for Philadelphia this year. So we should have more Zlatan.

More Zlatan's for teams that can't afford Marco Fabian's equals a bad deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you following the MLS expansion road show, Commissioner Don Garber came to St. Louis Monday to meet with the Taylor family of Enterprise Rental Car and other owners of the #MLS4THELOU ownership group. He also met with a panel of business experts in a push to get the team the corporate support it needs to land a MLS franhcise. 

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2019/03/11/mls-commissioner-visits-st-louis-as-mls4thelou.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

For those of you following the MLS expansion road show, Commissioner Don Garber came to St. Louis Monday to meet with the Taylor family of Enterprise Rental Car and other owners of the #MLS4THELOU ownership group. He also met with a panel of business experts in a push to get the team the corporate support it needs to land a MLS franhcise. 

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2019/03/11/mls-commissioner-visits-st-louis-as-mls4thelou.html

 

Yet he couldn't be bothered to visit cities in the league when they seemed to have similar issues of funding. So now the idea for getting team into MLS includes having stadium rights and shirt sponsors set, not just get the stadium built downtown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Yet he couldn't be bothered to visit cities in the league when they seemed to have similar issues of funding. So now the idea for getting team into MLS includes having stadium rights and shirt sponsors set, not just get the stadium built downtown. 

My sense from here on the ground in St. Louis is that the naming rights/jersey sponsorships — that sort of direct corporate support — are likely the only missing pieces from their expansion bid. Garber was in town trying to help push #MLS4THELOU over the finish line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

My sense from here on the ground in St. Louis is that the naming rights/jersey sponsorships — that sort of direct corporate support — are likely the only missing pieces from their expansion bid. Garber was in town trying to help push #MLS4THELOU over the finish line. 

To me, that's not what a commissioner should not be doing unless the team was already approved and then having issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that smacks a little bit of Goodell surreptitiously putting his finger on the scale to aid the St. Louis effort to keep the Rams.  The Commish should be neutral in these matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

To me, that's not what a commissioner should not be doing unless the team was already approved and then having issues. 

I don’t know, I see it as more of a sales pitch for the league. Garber comes to town to make the case to corporate executives why putting their money into a MLS franchise is a good investment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gothamite said:

If he does it for all candidate cities, sure.  But does he?

It's a good question. I'm not sure whether there's a standard protocol, but I also think we should be thinking of Garber less as a league commissioner and more as the CEO of a growing business.

 

If you find people you want to do business with, you find a way to make it happen. Garber's primary objective is to ensure the health and stability of the league, and If he thinks having a wealthy and respected family like the Taylors involved in MLS benefits that goal, he's going to do anything he can to help that along. That's what his bosses, the league of governors, hire him to do. You can't be an independent arbiter when it comes to growing your business. 

 

And even if that weren't the case, he's said pretty publicly in the past week that the race for franchise No. 28 is between St. Louis and Sacramento, and has said in the past that the league could grow to 30, so going on what is effectively a sales call to one of the league's prospective markets seems like just another part of his job.

 

He's not Kenesaw Mountain Landis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gothamite said:

If he does it for all candidate cities, sure.  But does he?

 

Hell no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Hell no. 

 

Then it's out of line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It absolutely is. Comes with the territory at this point, though. 

 

 

You you know I can’t be objective on this part 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Then it's out of line.

 

Out of line by what standards? Did commissioner of Major League Soccer become an elected public position at some point and I just missed it?

 

He's the CEO of a private company looking to expand. The only difference between him and and a bank CEO opening branches in a new state is that Garber's expansion process is of greater public interest. But that doesn't make him accountable to public interests.

 

I understand the frustration of Sacramento Republic fans; it's justified. I just don't think you can hold up the head of a sports league — an unregulated private enterprise — to some sort of equal play standard, especially in circumstances outside the field of play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

Out of line by what standards? Did commissioner of Major League Soccer become an elected public position at some point and I just missed it?

 

He's the CEO of a private company looking to expand. The only difference between him and and a bank CEO opening branches in a new state is that Garber's expansion process is of greater public interest. But that doesn't make him accountable to public interests.

 

I understand the frustration of Sacramento Republic fans; it's justified. I just don't think you can hold up the head of a sports league — an unregulated private enterprise — to some sort of equal play standard, especially in circumstances outside the field of play. 

If he's directly influencing an expansion bid he's out of line. If he's talking about parallel paths but refuses to visit the city that may lose its team, while telling his advocates in another city what MLS is comfortable allowing as far as stadium location while refusing to tell an owner to actually start taking care of his club instead of using it as a tax write off, he's wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

If he's directly influencing an expansion bid he's out of line. If he's talking about parallel paths but refuses to visit the city that may lose its team, while telling his advocates in another city what MLS is comfortable allowing as far as stadium location while refusing to tell an owner to actually start taking care of his club instead of using it as a tax write off, he's wrong. 

 

Ok, that Austin/Columbus situation was a fiasco. I'll give you that, but it also kind of proves my point. This is a business. For whatever reason, Garber & Co. wanted to keep Precourt in the league. As crappy as that seems, that's their right as a private enterprise. There are no regulations that stipulate what is or is not "out of line." And come on, "directly influencing an expansion bid?" This isn't FIFA taking bribes from prospective World Cup hosts. This is the CEO of a company selling his product to potential sponsors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.