MLS Expansion?

Since it is and was built as a dome, can they rip it off?

No field turf please.

More.. is there room for a full size pitch without removing Rows 1-5.

 

Lyle. The Promotion/Relegation system is not that different from standard corporate business models. Companies win big contracts and they lose big contracts. As they lose big contracts, they reduce their labor cost; as they win them, they bring on more talent. As long as you can make a profit, at each level, it's a viable model. Even in Europe, the business side of the sport is taking over as the newer owners are looking at the bottom line when they look at wages and transfer costs. It is becoming a sport of getting the best results while spending the least amount of money, thereby maximizing profits - this is how businesses are run in every other sector.

From an investor perspective, promotion/relegation is perfect. They can buy in at the lower level, invest wisely and, with a combination of good personnel decisions and a small amount of speculative investment, they can earn promotion to the next level. With the increased revenue stream, you invest a bit more and hope for promotion again. The cycle continues. Relegation is bad, but from a pure business perspective, you just sell enough expensive talent to both still be in the black and have a good shot for promotion again.

It is actually the true football fans that break the model (willing to spend more than they bring in); if every team was run by corporate MBAs, it wouldn't be a problem.

 

I was blown away by the assumptions apparent in that post, Andy.

But THAT line takes the cake.

If teams were run by corporate MBA's there would be {actually ARE} REAL problems!

 

Pettyfog. I actually think that teams like Chelski are bad for the game. Teams like that, run by Billionaires who don't care about the business but just want to be the owner of a winning team, are not what I consider good for the game. MAF spent money this season, but it fell within the 30 million pound increase he received due to the new EPL TV contract so was, in that respect, good business. Abramovich's Chelski has lost hundreds of millions of pounds over the last few years. Even from a long-term investment perspective, it is not good business and the Premiership is suffering because of it (artificially high transfer costs, etc.).

 

Speaking of MLS expansion......here is an article from the St. Louis Post Dispatch

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports ... enDocument

Would be a great rivalry with Chicago and KC.

 

NO IT ISN'T!!! To get promoted you have to SPEND!!! Yet, since you're on a lower level you make a lot less money. You only make money at the highest levels of European football. All the other teams lose money trying to keep up/stay up or just get by and suck.

Europe is moving towards a Euro-wide league so it can maximize profits. Relegation/promotion does NOT maximize profits... but for the top tier teams. There are only 6 to 7 English teams that are profit making teams for their owners... the rest break even or lose money. Fulham, I bet, hasn't made a profit in years if you factor in their total debts.

Look, obviously I'm not going to convince you that what you're saying is absolutely wrong... but you're wrong. The worse possible money making system for MLS would be a promotion/relegation system. You seem to think every little team that gets invested in can just fly to the top of the next level like nothing. That doesn't happen. And when it doesn't happen people lose money and the team goes into bankruptcy. Coventry, just today, has been linked with administration (bankruptcy) in England. They're the upteenth English team that has been because English football is not a profit making enterprise. Leeds should be out of business... but people continue to throw money away at it, because it is a great club with a lot of potential... but nobody has made money off Leeds for several years now.

MLS won't EVER be a promotion/relegation league because there will be less money to go around for everybody... which is stupid when the whole point is to make money.

You also fail to realize that if MLS goes to a promotion/relegation system it will have the same "problems" that England has, i.e., the Chelskis and Man Us. No small market team will be good and no one will care, and just go watch their local football team win despite being in a small-market because of revenue sharing and the salary cap, things you can't have in a promotion/relegation system. So LA and NY will win an already boring MLS year in and year out.

 

Lyle. Reading wasn't considered a big spender, but they not only earned promotion, but ended up 8th in the table last season.

The only reason that EPL teams are losing money to stay up is because of the number of big spenders in league. Those big spenders are artificially raising the transfer fees and wages of players. With a league full of well run businesses, you effectively have a salary cap (the amount you can spend and still stay in the black). Yes, larger market teams will tend to have higher revenues, but as these larger markets will often host more than one team, the delta is not as large as you would think. With financial bonuses coming from results, it is very possible for a well managed team, with only 70% of the revenue of larger market teams, to still win and therefore increase their revenue stream. The problems arise when you have too rich owners who care more about winning that running a successful business model - these owners are bad for the entire league.

 

Reading doesn't make any money and their owner is looking to sell the team. Selling the team is the only way he can make money, because EPL teams are in demand now. The team itself is a loss. They actually draw fewer people than Fulham does. And they will eventually be relegated out of the Premiership because they really can't afford to play in the Premiership.

It doesn't matter that they were promoted. Three teams are promoted every year. That doesn't mean they are profitable teams. It just means they were one of the 3 best Championship teams... none of whom make money.

 

Andy,

The reason the "big spenders" spend is because the league is a promotion/relegation league. You're arguing against your own argument with this line of thinking. The "big spenders" pay huge transfer fees so that they don't risk dropping down a league. To stay promoted you have to spend big.

There can be no effective salary cap in a promtoin/relegation league. If you can pay more for a wanted player than other teams you will because you think it will keep you up. Some team has to win the transfer battle and you do this often by paying more than other teams. It makes no sense to sell a player at the exact same price to all teams, when one team is willing to pay more... and there will always be somebody willing to pay more because they want to win or stay promoted.

Low transfer fees simply has nothing to do with how well a football team is run finanacially.

Even where you finish on the league table offers little financial help. Wigan, the year before last, finished 10th or something and almost got relegated last year. The only reason they're in the Premiership is because of their owner Whelan who spends more than he earns from Wigan. Once he's gone Wigan will go to shit because they can't make enough money on their own. Same thing may happen to Fulham once Al Fayed is gone.

 

I say this only partly tounge-in-cheek but the best eight teams in the PL play at ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal.

 

Lyle. At this point, we're talking past each other You argue that the big spenders are spending big because they don't want to be relegated; I'm arguing that if the big spenders focused more on the bottom line, transfer fees and wages would be lower and all teams could be more profitable. Same issue, just two different ways of looking at it. At this point, we'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

Andy,

The big spenders are focused on the bottom line. That's why they have all the big time investors coming for them. They have the money to out spend everybody else. They actually make money... which is what I've been saying over and over. It isn't their job to help out little ole Fulham or Wigan.

 

Lyle. None of the big spending top teams are in the black. They have higher revenues, but not enough to keep up with their spending.

 

Um... back to expansion?

Looks like Philly is next, at least on the 'short list'... this local writer presents some damn good evidence for it.

Book it: MLS team is coming to Chester

 

So it is beginning to sound like San Jose will even out the teams at 14 and St. Louis and Philly will push the number to 16.

 

Bah, I really want Seattle to get a team. Qwest Stadium was built with MLS in mind, with promises from MLS they would be on the short list. Don't know what happened there.

And if only Salt Lake could get a real team...sigh

 

Those are all solid choices.

Plus, there are arguments to "upgrade" Rochester and Montreal from USL Div-1 to MLS, based upon their existing stadiums and support.