1. Save 40-80% on great soccer jerseys. Shop today at BigSoccer Shop!

Man City Owners Pondering Bid for NY II; Red Bull Having Second Thoughts?

Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by triplet1, Nov 20, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: edwardgr, Ismitje, KCbus
  1. looknohands

    looknohands Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    Franchise values will increase so long as there is demand for them. It really is that simple. The major appeal that MLS offers for a foreign investor--particularly one that owns another club--is the ability to run an organization at minimal losses while simultaneously tapping into a huge potential market of consumers. From a bottom-line standpoint, it's hard to imagine a better league to invest in when it comes to risk/reward.
     


  2. looknohands

    looknohands Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    No chance. Look at the names ahead of them: Barry, Milner, Nasri, Rodwell, Silva, Javi Garcia, Scott Sinclair, Yaya Toure, Balotelli, Dzeko, Aguero and Tevez. That would be their competition.
     
    Justin O, carnifex2005 and superdave repped this.
  3. sidefootsitter

    sidefootsitter Member+

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    What is Milner's name doing among the greats and the near greats?
     
  4. tigersoccer2005

    tigersoccer2005 Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    North Bergen, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    It really depends on whether or not Man City can afford or is willing to spend on the expansion fee (which doesnt include the actual costs of starting up--just the right to enter the league.) and also on whether or not Man City would be able to accept the restrictions put upon them by the league rules and single entity structure.

    We've seen this before--at the end of the day both Boca Juniors and Barcelona opted to not go forward with their MLS experiment ideas. Boca couldn't handle the entrance fee and never got past the talks/negotiations stage and Barca was put off by fee as as well as by the fact that they wouldn't be able to control the club like the way they were used to in Europe. Their flirtation lasted a lot longer than Boca's and the league was more tempted by the euro brand name but in the end they stood firm as to entrance requirements. A lot closer to home--the Cosmos group left for NASL for pretty much the same reasons-- paraphrasing here--"rather than giving that much money to the league we'd rather spend it on ourselves. We have dreams of becoming a superclub and MLS rules wouldn't allow us to have full control."

    I say kudos to MLS--entering the league should precisely be difficult in order to filter out the poseurs and the users from the league. The league made a rookie mistake with Chivas, as far as teams that orginally dreamt of using their MLS teams as developmental squads (until the idea blew up in Chivas' face). They also made another mistake in allowing a group to buy into the league solely for marketing purposes (Red Bull) and the league is now regretting that decision as well. Also, I would rather franchise 20 be named Cosmos which is at least a name tied to American soccer history than have it be branded City FC :rolleyes: There is enough euro pandering in this league already. The good news is that it seems the league has learned its lesson--- there is no sense in repeating history and in admitting clubs that don't have legitimate intentions to compete and build up the league.
     
    tab5g repped this.


  5. triplet1

    triplet1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck in the Middle
    Just to re-set this, there are in fact two groups that are mentioned in the article:

    "Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s purchase of Manchester City may have begun as a whim, but its potential as a marketing and diplomatic tool quickly became clear to the emirate’s ruling family.

    The success of the project is understood to have led to discussion of building City 'franchises’ in other leagues, with the US among the most lucrative and high-profile developing markets in world football.

    Qatar are also interested in extending their global reach in football to the US, with the investor behind Paris St-Germain understood to be taking soundings about the MLS."

    Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. PSG is owned by the Qatar Investment Authority. And, as well all know, both City and PSG have made recent visits to New York.
     
  6. tigersoccer2005

    tigersoccer2005 Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    North Bergen, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    So we have two oil sheikhs with tons of money and a not so clear direction as to what they want to do once they get here considering bids for Franchise 20 NYC. Or to put it in Euro terms-- the owners of Man City and PSG . It will be interesting to see how the league reacts to all this "interest".
    If both these groups do not have good faith intentions towards the league (and that is something only God knows), then I hope their bids die slow painful deaths. We should be beyond the point as a league where we need someone who only wants to use the league to build up their own brand (whether that brand be Chivas or Red Bull) rather than because they legitimately want to compete and build up the league.

    If the Qatar investment group wins--I wonder if Franchise 20 local tv contract rights would only be given to beInSport USA?
     
  7. tab5g

    tab5g Member+

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Strong competition indeed.

    But saying that Donovan and/or Henry would have "no chance" to see minutes (or make the bench even) from among that group I think is overstating your case (or undervaluing the actual level of quality that is available -- even very limitedly or minimally -- within MLS).
     
    wsmaugham repped this.
  8. tab5g

    tab5g Member+

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Agree with a lot of this.

    But how does MLS know it is selecting "the right ownership group" -- no matter their selection?

    Any group that is willing to buy into the single-entity would very likely, in the opinions of the BoG, be a group that classifies as "a right ownership group."

    And yes, MLS does apparently have a recent history of "leaving money on the table" during negotiations -- see the NBC selection over FoxSoccer in the current 3-year tv rights deal (beyond what Disney/Univision had in place through 2014).

    But I think the ownership selection for Team20 is in some ways a simpler (and more straight forward) decision than that of who will be the 2nd tier broadcast partner for just 3 years. And it likely will just come down to money, and it won't matter all that much if it is a "local group" of folks like Blazer and/or Beckham, or if it is some "foreign group" from the Middle East or Europe or elsewhere.
     
  9. Justin O

    Justin O Member+

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 1998
    Location:
    Vermont
    Club:
    Seattle
    The response was about two players' chances to "regularly " appear in the the match day squad of one club. I'm not trying to speak for the original poster, but there was not nearly enough in that response to extrapolate further about anyone's opinion about the overall quality available in MLS.

    And I believe the "no chance" was in reponse to your arguement that the two "could/would legitimately and regularly be in the matchday squad". I don't interpret that as them having no chance to ever make the bench, a different argument which you seem to have subtlely switched to in this last post.

    If you are, in fact, arguing that Henry would be a regular fixture in the 18 of Man City, then I agree with the "no chance" response.

    I'll leave my response to Henry, as I don't know enough about City's midfield vis a vis Donovan, but based on Henry's performance on loan at Arsenal, I don't see how, 1 year older, he would ever move ahead of any of Man City's many fantastic forwards.
     
  10. tab5g

    tab5g Member+

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Well-stated.

    With their ownership selection for Team20, we'll likely get a look at how MLS has matured and changed in the last 7-8 years, and what if any "lessons" MLS has learned from previous expansion processes.

    Clearly the initial focus on getting an appropriate venue built (in a "central" location) is a positive lesson that the league has been able to absorb and work on implementing.

    Within the confines of the league's single entity business, the "location" and venue itself for the individual franchises are just as important (if not more important) than any (temporary) ownership group brought in to the league whole.
     
  11. tab5g

    tab5g Member+

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Not that it is all that relevant to the thread topic itself, but these are the original statements to which I was offering a different opinion:

    I can see why others would hold a different opinion, but I certainly believe that Donovan and Henry would make Man City's senior squad in the current season.

    (and it is not that unrealistic to think that MLS could dream of (younger) players like Shea or Hamid being capable of having the sufficient quality to get into a side that is a top 2-3 EPL club yet one that can't get out of a very difficult UCL group.)

    Regardless of the on-field quality discrepancies or not (between Man City players and MLS "All-Stars"), the off-field decision facing MLS as to where/how/when to expand, and whom to accept as a new ownership group and investor(s) in the league will come down to internal private business decisions and conditions into which everyone here won't have much insight or ability to accurately analyze as to if it was the "right" or "best" decision(s).
     
  12. tab5g

    tab5g Member+

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    Agree with a lot of this.

    Of course the challenge for MLS -- if it lets in some "foreign brand," be that Chivas, Boca, Barca, Man City or PSG -- is that it is undercutting that "huge potential market of consumers" of the MLS product/brand by turning off/away all of those in MLS's market who aren't already attached to or may have some strong dislike for those specific soccer brands from elsewhere.
     
  13. Zoidberg

    Zoidberg Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006

    The only reason MLS accepted Chivas was because at that time MLS couldn't get investors. No matter how bad the situation is now out in LA that clown Vergera was a big help to the league back when it was in dire straits.
    Gratitiude.....but u can go now.

    MLS rebuffed all the other half baked schemes u mentioned after that as the least started finding it's legs.

    I'm sure Garber and the owners aren't gonna accept another Chivas situation. Different time and place now.

    This type of thread has popped up very year or two, feeder team yada yada yada, in one form or another.

    All for not. This will be the same.
     
    redinthemorning and tab5g repped this.
  14. triplet1

    triplet1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck in the Middle
    The article isn't clear, but that may not actually be what they have in mind. This seemed to me a very important point in the article -- the real benefit of Man City wasn't the investment, but its "potential as a marketing and diplomatic tool . . . to the emirate’s ruling family."

    In other words, it's not the club's brand they are expanding, it's the country's brand they want to polish.

    And I think the same thing is going on with PSG and the Qatar Investment Authority -- particularly if you consider the expanding sponsorship activity of the Qatar Foundation in soccer. Remember too that BeIn Sport is owned by Al Jazeera, which is, in turn, owned by Qatar Media Corporation.

    I'm not suggesting anything sinister here, only that their motivation is probably not the same as selling Red Bull or Omnilife. I sincerely doubt they would invest only to bring us ManCityUSA or PSGUSA, especially if such branding brought a firestorm of criticism.

    If they do invest, first and foremost, I think they will be motivated to improve their image, not the brand of some other club they own. That makes this a bit different IMO.
     
    redinthemorning, Kappa74 and tab5g repped this.
  15. stucknutah

    stucknutah Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    In the Office
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    [responding to the Real Salt Lake is a stupid name pseudo - threadjack]
    Not defending the name, which I do believe is Euro-posing at it worst, it did accomplish exactly what the ownership group wanted...to have a name that screamed "soccer", not any other sport. Even when the team name was first announced, non-soccer fans, when asked, would say "Never heard of them, is that a new soccer team?" Mission accomplished.

    As an aside for any hardcore folks who hate the name, the majority of the fans here refer to them as "RSL".

    Back to Red Bull discussion with a question: "What do the fans of FC Red Bull Salzburg think of being named after an energy drink?" If they simply don't care and are happy to have a well-heeled ownership group, couldn't it be argued that the NY fans are being a little hyper-critical?
     
  16. triplet1

    triplet1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck in the Middle
    Please, I know several want to talk about it, but let's not do this here. I included RB for this discussion only because of the speculation that Red Bull isn't happy with the prospect of a well funded NYII and may want out. Whether the branding worked or didn't work has been discussed in other threads and isn't central to the discussion IMO -- unless you think the potential buyers are potentially repeating the same mistake.

    I had hoped this thread would be a discussion of potential buyers, both for NYII and, perhaps, RBNY.
     
    redinthemorning repped this.
  17. tab5g

    tab5g Member+

    Joined:
    May 17, 2002
    And clearly a discussion of potential buyers (for new or established MLS franchises) would likely include some discussion or speculation about how any new ownership group would or could opt to brand/utilize/promote their MLS team/investment.
     
  18. gaucho16

    gaucho16 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    MLS is in a different position now than when Chivas USA and Red Bull were admitted. I honestly don't see them committing to a Man City USA scenario.

    We can complain about the past all we want, but that is a part of what has brought us to where we are today.

    Now with 2 hyperwealthy potential investors, MLS will have more discretion in selecting the bid that meets the best interest of the league as opposed to a brand. I didn't see Man City's owners turn that team into an insincere corporate nightmare (unless you consider spending unlimited on player transfers to be so).

    So if we can determine that the league is smart enough not to allow a corporate branding team name similar to Red Bull, or a stupid name comparable to Chivas USA, are people really against this?? Are people against adding another investor that has proven they want to spend money and spend what it takes to put a good product on the field?

    We need more investors with this mentality if we want the league to grow. Or we can add more owners like the Krafts. I don't know what type of magical unicorn ownership group people are looking for here.
     
  19. Zoidberg

    Zoidberg Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006

    It's an incredibly small vocal majority. The Internet makes them think their opinions are worth more than they are, and are more widely accepted. It makes them think soccer is 3 steps further along than it actually is. Always been like that and always will be with this segment of follower/complainer.

    Same with politics unfortunately.


    IOW's, I've seen this thread before...yawn.
     
    SYoshonis repped this.
  20. noel R

    noel R Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Location:
    chicago
    In chicago there is a park 5 min from my house. For years this small city park sat empty most of the year even on warm summer days. This park had a softball field and old park district building. About a year ago the city began doing work on this park and put up fences and tarps. When work finished and tarps came down, there was a new building that offered more then just bathrooms and a new playlot for children. This was paid by the city and a rich family that controls chicago. However instead of a useless softball field there was a state of the art turf soccer field paid by MAN CITY. Its like playing on air that field is so soft on the legs. And that park is full 80% of the day, even into Nov. I am a Fire fan and now I will go out of my way to watch a City game every now and then. They have my support.
     
  21. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2010
    Location:
    Outside of Philly
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Country:
    United States
    Didn't Man City also build/refurbish a soccer field in NYC? I also thought that Man City also began a partnership with a local NYC Youth soccer club, or even possibly started a youth soccer club in NYC. Does anyone remover this? I remember reading about this in the summer of 2010 when Man City took part in the Barclay's NY Football Challenge.
     
  22. Balerion

    Balerion Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Country:
    United States
    Are you suggesting that the league would be forced to choose between someone like Jorge Vergara and someone like Bob Kraft?

    I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. There's plenty of room in the middle for someone who is actually a good owner.
     
    Zoidberg repped this.
  23. Jossed

    Jossed Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Club:
    Ft Lauderdale Strikers
    That was pretty blatant posturing from the group behind the Cosmos. Just hot air. They simply didn't have the money and backing to become #20 at the moment. Do you think they wanted to come back as a minor league team in the NASL? A league with zero media exposure, no television, and almost no following? They know it will hurt the brand. Everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. They are not taking that $100 mil fee they would of spent and using that towards the club in the NASL. Hiring Giovanni Savarese(which is smart for a D2 club) as their manager should tell you that.

    They know they cannot sell lots of merchandise and become a superclub playing in a minor league out in Long Island in a small college stadium with lacrosse lines. All their plans rest on getting into MLS. Otherwise they are just the new FCNY. Those MLS rules won't be a big deal once they have the money to afford the fee.

    The question is how much competition do they now have for MLS? It would be ironic if the Cosmos ended up getting priced out and their MLS dreams go kaput.
     
  24. Zoidberg

    Zoidberg Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006

    THERE IS NO MIDDLE IN THIS!!!!

    THE MIDDLE ISN'T PART OF AMERICAN SOCIETY ANYMORE!!!!!

    SCREAM!!!
     
    SYoshonis and looknohands repped this.
  25. TheLostUniversity

    TheLostUniversity Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Location:
    Greater Boston
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    And so Zoidberg, Man of Reason, brought calm to the Sea of Discord.
     
    Allez RSL and looknohands repped this.
Moderators: edwardgr, Ismitje, KCbus
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page