I don't think ROI really comes in to the thinking that many of these new owners put in to buying an NFL team. If they have the resources and the desire to be part of a very limited club, then they go for it.

When was the last time the value of an NFL team decreased? :hmmm:

I hardly consider being the owner of an NFL franchise a sucker but to each their own. As an example, the Pegulas bought the Bills in 2014 for $1.4B and the team is currently valued (by Forbes) $200M higher than their purchasing price - and that's in the smallest market in the US and the lowest valued team in the NFL.

Still love the story of Trump stating in 1984 that he could've bought the Cowboys for 50M but that it's already established and would just be a lateral investment. Meanwhile the Cowboys are now worth 5B. Yep, only 100x increase in value - nothing to see here. :haha:

Aren't you always the one who posts things like mainstream North American sports are dying, via millenials/immigrants/headshots/excuses de jour and that soccer is taking over. A lot can change in 20 years.

Disregarding the rules for who can own a team in the NFL, when Rogers was in the mix there were a lot of beancounters at MLSE who didn't think it was all too great an idea. Source: Prime Time Sports

Those were probably still Teachers Pension Fund bean counters.

I've said many times before on here that the NFL if it came to Toronto would be a huge success, but one of the handicaps that a Toronto team would have is that the owner would probably have to build the stadium themselves.

I believe most of the NFL's clubs play in stadiums that haven't been paid by the teams or their owners.

This document outlines the funding breakdown of NFL stadiums:

https://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress...ry-12-2-11.pdf

Notably:

• MetLife (Giants & Jets) was 100% private;
• Lincoln in Philly was 2/3rds private;
• Gillette in Foxboro was 80% private;
• Ford in Detroit was 75% private;
• FedEx in Washington was 72% private; and,
• Cowboys Stadium in Arlington was 63% private.

Rest were majority public funds. A lot of teams seem to fall in the 30%-40% support for their stadiums.

Not included in that list is the new $1B stadium in Minnesota which was 50/50 split private/public and the new stadium in Atlanta which was also split 50/50.

via q12, CPL attendance at the end of the spring season:

Figures are more or less to be expected. Crowds should increase as we move into July and August. MLS/USL/NASL crowds are always consistently higher in the late summer compared to the early summer, so there should be a bump on most of these for the fall season. HFX are playing at or very near to capacity.

Canadian streaming service OneSoccer, home of CPL, Canadian Championship, and the CMNT/CWNT, have recently acquired the Canadian broadcast rights for both the Chinese Super League/Chinese FA Cup and Mexico's LIGAMX.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-pGOBtXUAAeYvv.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_NVVTzWwAcTkOf.jpg

Last week's CFL ratings, worrisome trend that outside of Bomber and Rider games ratings are getting really weak:

https://3downnation.com/2019/07/11/s...he-cfl-season/

Don't know if this has been brought up before, but if viewership and attendance is down other than in SK and WPG, why would the ownership group and possibly the city and province lay out such a huge expenditure for a new team and stadium if those two important metrics are trending down?

Is there any point to this startup if the league they are joining is trending backwards?

I mean, I know viewership and attendance can go down in the big leagues and there's no shortage of cities wanting to join, but those leagues are massive entities with huge TV contracts and spread out over the US and Canada. The CFL is apples to those oranges.

Should those behind the Schooners be that enthusiastic?

I grew up watching the CFL and attending a few Argos games and a couple of Ticats games and I want it to succeed. But the league is trending down.

Then again lots of sports are, like baseball. As is my favourite sport, Formula 1. F1 is still massive but it's definitely not what it used to be and all the stakeholders recognize that.

CFL's two biggest issues are 1)that their 3 largest markets are currently the 3 worst teams in the league and have not had consistent winning clubs in many many years. (Yes Argos won 2 Grey Cups but they were 9-9 teams that were flukes and failed to capitalize in the following seasons)2) Games are way too expensive for the average fan especially when all the games are on tv in HD now for free why would a family shill out $79 a ticket plus $12 for a beer and $11 bucks for parking. The eskimos move of free tickets for under 17 year olds, $22 discount endzone seats and cheaper food is a good start and needs to be replicated league wide. Get kids and families into the games and stop bothering wasting time on millennials who do not care for the CFL they are already lost fan base to NBA and NFL

The Halifax people are probably hoping they can be the Riders of the east, be that popular loveable regional team. Fill that role of the local big league team.

I read the article and may I say that you are reaching very far to put the most dramatically negative spin possible on things. I mean, there's always room for improvement, but averaging over half a million viewers for last week's games is not exactly a three alarm fire scenario.

CFL used to get a few games above 1M each regular season - now it's news when they hit 700K. The league hasn't had a regular season game over the 1M mark since 2015. The article is probably right to bring attention to a 6% decline so far this season after a 4% increase last season.

To shine more of a light on this: in 2018, of the 77 games we have data for, nine of them had audiences between 300K-400K on TSN. In 2019 we've already had five such games through Week 4. It seems to be that if the CFL starts its season before Canada Day both its gate and TV audiences take a hit. I'm interested to see if there will still be a push for June starts moving forward.

I know this year was the Raptors run and etc. etc. but what happens if the CFL starts in June and the Jets/Leafs/Canucks/Flames are on a run to the Cup Final? How do the Bombers fair on a Thursday night if the Jets are playing in the SCF on Wednesday and Friday? These are questions and risks the CFL will have to take, I imagine. This year's SCF ran until June 12.

Having a TV with TSN is not free.

A good question.

The difference between "the big leagues" and the CFL is that CFL teams still rely heavily on gate receipts. If one combines gates with the TSN payment to each team you're looking at a heavy chunk of a team's overall revenue in those two sources. Other leagues are able to branch out more with sponsors, corporate partnerships, etc. and the CFL simply doesn't have that ability on a wider level.

^ To your first point, I personally liked the idea of moving the CFL season up a little to avoid the winter weather that is common toward the end of the regular season and into the playoffs, but you might be right in that that the market doesn't seem to like the early start. Maybe there just isn't enough time to sell tickets and the game itself when you're trying to break through the noise generated by the NHL playoffs, and the NBA playoffs this year which were obviously a much bigger presence in Canada than ever before.

You are right in that if a Canadian NHL team goes to the finals, it would really overshadow the start of the CFL season. It just might be that the CFL has to go back to its traditional schedule.

How does TFC, Whitecaps, and Impact make the money? Do they get more/better sponsors? Their attendances in each respective city is better than the CFL counterpart, maybe aside from Montreal, but their tv audiences surely don’t. How does MLS as a league tv audiences compare to the CFL?

TV is only a smart part of the pie for MLS franchises.

As a comparison, the three Canadian MLS teams make between $3M-$4M USD per season on their jersey sponsors alone. That's the equivalent to what each CFL team makes from their entire TV contract. This is on top of something like, for example, $5M USD per season per team for the Adidas league-wide jersey contract. MLS teams' revenue on sponsorships and corporate alone is pretty strong. They'll be pulling in another ~$1M/season per team on sleeve sponsors once those begin in the next year or so.

They also take part in the international transfer of players, which means they're able to buy and sell players at loss or profit. Whitecaps sold Davies for $22M last season, as one example, and just spent $2M+ on Ali Adnan. This is why MLS teams are keen to build training and youth facilities - the more youth they develop the deeper their team will be, and the more they develop the more they can potentially sell. The ROI on a youth soccer academy is pretty high if they're able to actually develop talent.

I think other than TFC maybe breaks even or makes a bit, the other 2 lose money. There is more money from MLS wide sponsorship deals with kit sponsorship etc. and money from expansion, but from everything I read VWFC and the Impact lose money and TFC is closer to profits with higher revenue but bigger expenses for salary

TFC loses tonnes of money. Approximately $10 million last year. And tens of millions the previous years before that.

Montreal lost $11 million last year and if the owner doesn't receive subsidies from the city to improve his facility, which is one of the worst in MLS, the team is likely living on borrowed time. Their losses are likely to be worse for 2019 as attendance is down nearly 3,000 per game this year...all this after the owner complained about lack of corporate and season ticket sales which he had hoped to improve this year.

Vancouver loses several million per year. Their gate revenue is likely to drop significantly this year as attendance is already down approx. 1000 per game from last year and will become worse as the season progresses; the team is terrible. Selling off Davies mitigates those annual losses but likely only for next 4-5 years. The issue with the Whitecaps is BC Place for which their revenue streams are extremely limited. They are at or near the bottom of the league for revenues. With all the recent additions of new MLS stadiums now and in the near future, the gap between rich and poor has become significantly bigger.

Fueled by rapid fire expansion, team values have exploded, even with modest increases in US tv ratings (Canadian tv ratings are generally terrible with all 3 teams consistently averaging below 100,000). Expansion fees have also allowed teams to post modest losses or profits.

Rapid expansion will not abet with 3 new teams set to join in the next 2 years, the likelihood of another 2 the following 2 years and upwards of 32 teams in 5 years. All to establish a footprint in the US with the hopes of receiving a huge tv contract. As I said before, the ratings gains are modest so don't expect that to happen and when the expansion money dries up, team valuations are likely to stabilize and possibly even decline.

Back to Vancouver and Montreal, in the event they are not able to resolve their issues in the medium term, I could see one or both eventually move to a mid-sized American city. Many are in the planning stages for swanky 18 - 20,000 seat stadiums for which the teams would have complete revenue control. This might be an attractive alternative for the Canadian owners should push come to shove.