The Home of Arena Football Fans since 1998

ArenaFan.com :: View topic - Announcement coming next week
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ    SearchSearch  ProfileProfile  Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages  
Announcement coming next week
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post new topic Reply to topic    ArenaFan.com Forum Index -> AFL
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mactheknife wrote:
4th&long wrote:
mactheknife wrote:
4th&long wrote:
6k at $20 net revenue a pop (which accounts for freebies) would be $120kx7=840k + 60k in sponsorships and ads etc... 900k. If they got that kinda revenue first yr they'd be ecstatic.

I'd say half that attendance or less - no way are they anticipating 6k. However that's excluding start up costs.


If they generate $900K in 2018, they'll do slightly better than break-even, taking into account start-up costs, taxes, personnel overhead, insurance costs, 'wastefuls' (e.g., cost of goods on merchandise they can't move) and so forth.

3,000 per home date over the first season would actually be bad - because second-season numbers almost always aren't as good, as the novelty wears off. If they draw like the original, Raleigh-based Carolina Cobras? They'll do well. If they draw like the Charlotte-based Cobras? They'll survive. If they draw like the Triangle Torch here in Raleigh? The team doesn't make it past 2018.


MacTK

Good name btw

As far as cost structure, i stated exclusing startup costs. But no way this league/team is cost structured to be 900k revenue as break even

Why dont u send me a Private message of your cost breakdown?


Because it's not worth doing extensive math for let alone an argument. Smile

I hope they do well. They're set up to if they draw. It'll all hinge on gate.


well i think you costs estimate is too high
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:20 am    Post subject: Re: Announcement coming next week Reply with quote

nalfootballfan wrote:
I have spoken with several big and reliable sources and I have been told that the announcement is coming next week. (I was told not to reveal my sources, but trust me, they are reliable)


Well lets see what happens.....
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Firstnten.net
Ironman

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mactheknife wrote:
[
Again, it can be if they draw. Taking into account all the various terms and their respective requirements (including minimum, but mandatory office and ticketing staffing requirements), I'm guessing the break-even point on team operations (irrespective of shared league operating commitments) is around the 6,000 mark per home date.

That's double-plus what the Greensboro Prowlers drew fifteen years ago, and the team will not draw legions of fans from Raleigh or Charlotte (save college basketball, NC sports fans have never traveled well).


LMAO That's about 70% capacity does that number include the 20% comp tickets you mentioned?

Here is the % chance they pull a profit from home games....0%
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firstnten.net wrote:
mactheknife wrote:
[
Again, it can be if they draw. Taking into account all the various terms and their respective requirements (including minimum, but mandatory office and ticketing staffing requirements), I'm guessing the break-even point on team operations (irrespective of shared league operating commitments) is around the 6,000 mark per home date.

That's double-plus what the Greensboro Prowlers drew fifteen years ago, and the team will not draw legions of fans from Raleigh or Charlotte (save college basketball, NC sports fans have never traveled well).


LMAO That's about 70% capacity does that number include the 20% comp tickets you mentioned?

Here is the % chance they pull a profit from home games....0%


As I stated in previous post, The cost structure of Carolina likely allows for breakeven at 3k in attendance, give or take dependent on per person revenue.
That excludes start up costs.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mactheknife
Starter

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

4th&long wrote:
well i think you costs estimate is too high


Could be. But past experience has taught me to always estimate high on expenses, and low on revenues.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mactheknife wrote:
4th&long wrote:
well i think you costs estimate is too high


Could be. But past experience has taught me to always estimate high on expenses, and low on revenues.


Agree on Revenue side. But for discussions i assumed 3k in attendance

Expenses they have more control over and watch.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Firstnten.net
Ironman

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4th&long wrote:
Firstnten.net wrote:
mactheknife wrote:
[
Again, it can be if they draw. Taking into account all the various terms and their respective requirements (including minimum, but mandatory office and ticketing staffing requirements), I'm guessing the break-even point on team operations (irrespective of shared league operating commitments) is around the 6,000 mark per home date.

That's double-plus what the Greensboro Prowlers drew fifteen years ago, and the team will not draw legions of fans from Raleigh or Charlotte (save college basketball, NC sports fans have never traveled well).


LMAO That's about 70% capacity does that number include the 20% comp tickets you mentioned?

Here is the % chance they pull a profit from home games....0%


As I stated in previous post, The cost structure of Carolina likely allows for breakeven at 3k in attendance, give or take dependent on per person revenue.
That excludes start up costs.


my post was directed to Mac. I saw your statement lets see your calculations.

From what I saw you didn't have the arena contract particulars until Mac posted it.

How do they break even with 3K attendance.

I doubt they average that anyway.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firstnten.net wrote:
4th&long wrote:
Firstnten.net wrote:
mactheknife wrote:
[
Again, it can be if they draw. Taking into account all the various terms and their respective requirements (including minimum, but mandatory office and ticketing staffing requirements), I'm guessing the break-even point on team operations (irrespective of shared league operating commitments) is around the 6,000 mark per home date.

That's double-plus what the Greensboro Prowlers drew fifteen years ago, and the team will not draw legions of fans from Raleigh or Charlotte (save college basketball, NC sports fans have never traveled well).


LMAO That's about 70% capacity does that number include the 20% comp tickets you mentioned?

Here is the % chance they pull a profit from home games....0%


As I stated in previous post, The cost structure of Carolina likely allows for breakeven at 3k in attendance, give or take dependent on per person revenue.
That excludes start up costs.


my post was directed to Mac. I saw your statement lets see your calculations.

From what I saw you didn't have the arena contract particulars until Mac posted it.

How do they break even with 3K attendance.

I doubt they average that anyway.


With avg ticket price/concessions/merchandise $25+ that's $75k a game at 7 games that's 525k + 75-100k ads/sponsorship revenue that's 600k give or take 5% that's breakeven - imo.

What's that based on? Going by articles on cost to run a non-afl team, including comments by Iowa, Wichita, and others.
The key is getting that # and $ per.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
jmelq92501
Starter

Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Location: riverside,calif
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:57 pm    Post subject: heres the announcement... Reply with quote

AAGL
------

australian arena gridiron league
------------------------------------

6 teams 10 week regular season
teams in
perth,wa
adelaide,sa
melbourne,vic
sydney,nsw
brisbane,qld
hobart,tas or wellington/auckland,nz
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
TCIndepMo
Starter

Joined: 28 May 2010
Location: Indep, Mo
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will the AAGL use the same arena/field layout as the Aussie version of the Legends Football League?

What sat channel will this be on, LOL?
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Firstnten.net
Ironman

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4th&long wrote:

With avg ticket price/concessions/merchandise $25+ that's $75k a game at 7 games that's 525k + 75-100k ads/sponsorship revenue that's 600k give or take 5% that's breakeven - imo.

What's that based on? Going by articles on cost to run a non-afl team, including comments by Iowa, Wichita, and others.
The key is getting that # and $ per.

Articles written by who?

Looking at what Mac posted you’re looking at costs between what 20-30 grand per game? 20 grand conservatively. And that’s without player and coaches’/staff salaries.

The Revolution maxed at 3164 attendance and then averaged 2407 a game with Pewonski point blank saying he gave away 1000 seats per game.

100K in sponsors and ads seem optimistic as Pewonski from his own mouth said there was a “dearth of sponsors”.

And this was with a team with a winning record going to the playoffs.

History paints a bleak picture for the “Cobras”. Who even owns this team?

National Sports Ventures!?! I haven’t dug into “National Sports Ventures” but is certainly comes off as a front company for Bouchey.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firstnten.net wrote:
4th&long wrote:

With avg ticket price/concessions/merchandise $25+ that's $75k a game at 7 games that's 525k + 75-100k ads/sponsorship revenue that's 600k give or take 5% that's breakeven - imo.

What's that based on? Going by articles on cost to run a non-afl team, including comments by Iowa, Wichita, and others.
The key is getting that # and $ per.

Articles written by who?

Looking at what Mac posted you’re looking at costs between what 20-30 grand per game? 20 grand conservatively. And that’s without player and coaches’/staff salaries.

The Revolution maxed at 3164 attendance and then averaged 2407 a game with Pewonski point blank saying he gave away 1000 seats per game.

100K in sponsors and ads seem optimistic as Pewonski from his own mouth said there was a “dearth of sponsors”.

And this was with a team with a winning record going to the playoffs.

History paints a bleak picture for the “Cobras”. Who even owns this team?

National Sports Ventures!?! I haven’t dug into “National Sports Ventures” but is certainly comes off as a front company for Bouchey.


These were direct quotes from Iowa and Wichita FALLS (nighthawks) owners, and other tidbits over time.

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/sports/local/2017/07/25/potential-changes-store-nighthawks/510385001/
The ticket prices at WF were like $10-15 so no surprise they could not get the total revenue. But backing into that number 525-600k was likely breakeven.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/mattzimmer/2014/08/28/big-week-ifl/14712117/
>With most of the AFL's teams on the coasts, travel expenses were enormous. According to the Des Moines Register, AFL team budgets are around $4.5 million, while IFL budgets are about half a million.

http://www.thegazette.com/subject/sports/here-come-the-barnstormers-20150227
>The operating budget for an IFL team is roughly eight times less than one in the AFL. In a 14-team league which included franchises in major cities like Los Angeles and Philadelphia, the Barnstormers found it increasingly difficult to compete economically in the AFL while possessing the league’s smallest population base. In the IFL, seven of the nine other franchises are within comparable distance to the Barnstormers’ closest AFL “rival” — Cleveland.


We'll have to see if they are successful or not, hopefully they are.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mactheknife
Starter

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not disputing any of the numbers put forth in the previous post, but if they're accurate, it begs the question I've brought up elsewhere: why in the hell are AFL team operating budgets so much higher than those of the IFL, CIFL, NAL, EIEIOFL, etc.?

The gap between a $500K operating budget and a $4.5 million one is staggering to me. In fact, it kind of defies logic - with one primary exception (nets), these guys are playing essentially the same game.

There may be differences in the markets they operate in, and thus some fluctuation in terms of costs (e.g., renting an arena in Chicago may cost double, maybe even triple, one rented in Des Moines). But having researched dozens of arena and stadium leases from various sports, having investigated the fundamentals of team operating costs, and having launched a few business ventures of my own, I can say without doubt that there is no logical reason for an AFL team's operating budget to be nine times that of other leagues.

IMO, either the AFL number is ridiculously high, or the operating costs quoted for IFL, NAL, CIFL, EIEIOFL teams are low. It could also be a mix of both. But the idea that an AFL team costs 9 times as much to run as one in one of the other leagues is something someone would have to show me hard financials on to believe.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mactheknife wrote:
I'm not disputing any of the numbers put forth in the previous post, but if they're accurate, it begs the question I've brought up elsewhere: why in the hell are AFL team operating budgets so much higher than those of the IFL, CIFL, NAL, EIEIOFL, etc.?

The gap between a $500K operating budget and a $4.5 million one is staggering to me. In fact, it kind of defies logic - with one primary exception (nets), these guys are playing essentially the same game.

There may be differences in the markets they operate in, and thus some fluctuation in terms of costs (e.g., renting an arena in Chicago may cost double, maybe even triple, one rented in Des Moines). But having researched dozens of arena and stadium leases from various sports, having investigated the fundamentals of team operating costs, and having launched a few business ventures of my own, I can say without doubt that there is no logical reason for an AFL team's operating budget to be nine times that of other leagues.

IMO, either the AFL number is ridiculously high, or the operating costs quoted for IFL, NAL, CIFL, EIEIOFL teams are low. It could also be a mix of both. But the idea that an AFL team costs 9 times as much to run as one in one of the other leagues is something someone would have to show me hard financials on to believe.


The Orlando Amway lease is extremely high cost, that alone could have cost 800k-1mm in an 8 game home season (that may be a little high I'm going by memory but it was off the charts). Add in the cost of being on ESPN and CBSSN along with a high paid commissioner and league office, an away schedule that is 100% flight required, higher paid players and coaches etc... and its very possible. The there's local TV and radio. Also team front office costs would necessitate more money to ensure higher tix sales to cover the other costs. Not to mention cost to cover failed franchises absorbed by the other teams.
Granted the details are murky as we don't have visibility but its in the ball park.

I do think the IFL/NAL cost structure is substantially lower and the CIF downtream is even lower. This is why I firmly believe AZ is killing it $$$ wise and Iowa is doing very well. Jax too, but they are covering league cost while they ramp up (my take).
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
TargetToad
Starter

Joined: 31 May 2017
Location: Lutz, FL
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

4th&long wrote:
mactheknife wrote:
I'm not disputing any of the numbers put forth in the previous post, but if they're accurate, it begs the question I've brought up elsewhere: why in the hell are AFL team operating budgets so much higher than those of the IFL, CIFL, NAL, EIEIOFL, etc.?

The gap between a $500K operating budget and a $4.5 million one is staggering to me. In fact, it kind of defies logic - with one primary exception (nets), these guys are playing essentially the same game.

There may be differences in the markets they operate in, and thus some fluctuation in terms of costs (e.g., renting an arena in Chicago may cost double, maybe even triple, one rented in Des Moines). But having researched dozens of arena and stadium leases from various sports, having investigated the fundamentals of team operating costs, and having launched a few business ventures of my own, I can say without doubt that there is no logical reason for an AFL team's operating budget to be nine times that of other leagues.

IMO, either the AFL number is ridiculously high, or the operating costs quoted for IFL, NAL, CIFL, EIEIOFL teams are low. It could also be a mix of both. But the idea that an AFL team costs 9 times as much to run as one in one of the other leagues is something someone would have to show me hard financials on to believe.


The Orlando Amway lease is extremely high cost, that alone could have cost 800k-1mm in an 8 game home season (that may be a little high I'm going by memory but it was off the charts). Add in the cost of being on ESPN and CBSSN along with a high paid commissioner and league office, an away schedule that is 100% flight required, higher paid players and coaches etc... and its very possible. The there's local TV and radio. Also team front office costs would necessitate more money to ensure higher tix sales to cover the other costs. Not to mention cost to cover failed franchises absorbed by the other teams.
Granted the details are murky as we don't have visibility but its in the ball park.

I do think the IFL/NAL cost structure is substantially lower and the CIF downtream is even lower. This is why I firmly believe AZ is killing it $$$ wise and Iowa is doing very well. Jax too, but they are covering league cost while they ramp up (my take).

If Tampa/Cleveland had moved to the NAL/IFL, would they be as successful? I'm sure their home leases, even with Vinik/Gilbert ownership, would be almost as high as the Amway Center. After all, the markets have similar sizes and the Lightning/Cavs are far more popular than the Magic.
_________________
RIP Tampa Bay Storm. You and the Arena League as a whole will be missed.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageAIM Address
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TargetToad wrote:
4th&long wrote:
mactheknife wrote:
I'm not disputing any of the numbers put forth in the previous post, but if they're accurate, it begs the question I've brought up elsewhere: why in the hell are AFL team operating budgets so much higher than those of the IFL, CIFL, NAL, EIEIOFL, etc.?

The gap between a $500K operating budget and a $4.5 million one is staggering to me. In fact, it kind of defies logic - with one primary exception (nets), these guys are playing essentially the same game.

There may be differences in the markets they operate in, and thus some fluctuation in terms of costs (e.g., renting an arena in Chicago may cost double, maybe even triple, one rented in Des Moines). But having researched dozens of arena and stadium leases from various sports, having investigated the fundamentals of team operating costs, and having launched a few business ventures of my own, I can say without doubt that there is no logical reason for an AFL team's operating budget to be nine times that of other leagues.

IMO, either the AFL number is ridiculously high, or the operating costs quoted for IFL, NAL, CIFL, EIEIOFL teams are low. It could also be a mix of both. But the idea that an AFL team costs 9 times as much to run as one in one of the other leagues is something someone would have to show me hard financials on to believe.


The Orlando Amway lease is extremely high cost, that alone could have cost 800k-1mm in an 8 game home season (that may be a little high I'm going by memory but it was off the charts). Add in the cost of being on ESPN and CBSSN along with a high paid commissioner and league office, an away schedule that is 100% flight required, higher paid players and coaches etc... and its very possible. The there's local TV and radio. Also team front office costs would necessitate more money to ensure higher tix sales to cover the other costs. Not to mention cost to cover failed franchises absorbed by the other teams.
Granted the details are murky as we don't have visibility but its in the ball park.

I do think the IFL/NAL cost structure is substantially lower and the CIF downtream is even lower. This is why I firmly believe AZ is killing it $$$ wise and Iowa is doing very well. Jax too, but they are covering league cost while they ramp up (my take).

If Tampa/Cleveland had moved to the NAL/IFL, would they be as successful? I'm sure their home leases, even with Vinik/Gilbert ownership, would be almost as high as the Amway Center. After all, the markets have similar sizes and the Lightning/Cavs are far more popular than the Magic.


Yes, assuming they maintained AZ level of attendance and $/person, they would be quite profitable.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
LoveFB
 

Joined: 30 Aug 2017
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The death knell was the tv contract. That was it. Paying millions to televise games nobody watched. That is where the major cost rested. This cost, plus the fact that the profitable franchises having to pour funds into the floundering franchises, mid-season, to keep them afloat to finish the season, doomed the league. It really is this simple. The fact that some teams paid players under the table did had some minor effect on cost, as did the fortune paid to the commissioner; but again, this was minor in relationship to the killer - tv cost.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mactheknife
Starter

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4th&long wrote:
The Orlando Amway lease is extremely high cost, that alone could have cost 800k-1mm in an 8 game home season (that may be a little high I'm going by memory but it was off the charts). Add in the cost of being on ESPN and CBSSN along with a high paid commissioner and league office, an away schedule that is 100% flight required, higher paid players and coaches etc... and its very possible. The there's local TV and radio. Also team front office costs would necessitate more money to ensure higher tix sales to cover the other costs. Not to mention cost to cover failed franchises absorbed by the other teams.
Granted the details are murky as we don't have visibility but its in the ball park.

I do think the IFL/NAL cost structure is substantially lower and the CIF downtream is even lower. This is why I firmly believe AZ is killing it $$$ wise and Iowa is doing very well. Jax too, but they are covering league cost while they ramp up (my take).


I've taken the liberty of initiating a public records request with respect to the Predators last lease agreement, so once it's honored I'll have some concrete data to share on it. The $100K figure per game seems high however, if for no other reason than a few years ago I inquired about leasing Tampa Stadium (not the old sombrero, but the new outdoor one with the corporate name I've never remembered) on behalf of a business associate; they only wanted $150K, and that was for a one-time event, not a steady tenancy.

And again, paying to be on television is profoundly stupid for a professional sports league - especially in the landscape of the past several years. Whoever devised that notion should've been fired on the spot. Unless telecasting games provides a direct, steady and reliable revenue stream, there's no business purpose in doing it.

Wait though... local TV and radio? What AFL 2.0 team has had a local television and/or radio partner broadcasting its games in the past decade? I've never checked it so I could very well be wrong, but if five of the myriad teams that have come and gone since 2008 had so much as a local radio deal? I'd be surprised.

One sentence you posted does touch upon a point I was making vis-a-vis the Cobras needing to draw more than 3K/home date to break-even: front office costs. Per their lease, the Cobras are required to maintain a physical presence in Greensboro during its term. That at minimum means office space, an office staff, a ticket sales staff, and their associated payroll and overhead costs. Living in Raleigh as I do, I know what the general labor market here is, and I can tell you - those people aren't going to come cheap, especially if the team expects to hire quality folks who can hit the proverbial ground running.

I can see AFL 2.0 failed franchise legacy costs inflating budgets, but not to the extent where they're 9 times those of other leagues. There's no way a guy like Leonsis buys into a league under those conditions; it'd be just bad business practice.

LoveFB wrote:
The death knell was the tv contract. That was it. Paying millions to televise games nobody watched. That is where the major cost rested. This cost, plus the fact that the profitable franchises having to pour funds into the floundering franchises, mid-season, to keep them afloat to finish the season, doomed the league. It really is this simple. The fact that some teams paid players under the table did had some minor effect on cost, as did the fortune paid to the commissioner; but again, this was minor in relationship to the killer - tv cost.


Perhaps, but without hard numbers to analyze, it's impossible to tell. Again, just in case readers didn't catch it when I wrote it above, the idea of a professional sports league paying to be on television, rather than selling the broadcast rights and taking in revenue from them, is profoundly stupid. Why on Earth any league would see it as a viable business or marketing strategy, I'm not sure I'll ever understand.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
AFLNerd36
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2016
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LoveFB wrote:
The death knell was the tv contract. That was it. Paying millions to televise games nobody watched. That is where the major cost rested. This cost, plus the fact that the profitable franchises having to pour funds into the floundering franchises, mid-season, to keep them afloat to finish the season, doomed the league. It really is this simple. The fact that some teams paid players under the table did had some minor effect on cost, as did the fortune paid to the commissioner; but again, this was minor in relationship to the killer - tv cost.


Almost nobody watched the games on CBSSN... I was one of the few who did... and the AFL should have gone with streaming options a few years earlier when they had 12 teams, but they didn't... and now, the league is near death. Add the failing franchises, the commissioner's salary being too high (heck, even 500k is a bit high for commissioner), and the uncertainty over sponsors and sponsorships, and you have a league that is likely going to not exist. If they do survive, then it will be just barely; if the AFL actually comes back, then it will probably be the greatest comeback of a football league in history.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Veteran

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mactheknife wrote:
4th&long wrote:
The Orlando Amway lease is extremely high cost, that alone could have cost 800k-1mm in an 8 game home season (that may be a little high I'm going by memory but it was off the charts). Add in the cost of being on ESPN and CBSSN along with a high paid commissioner and league office, an away schedule that is 100% flight required, higher paid players and coaches etc... and its very possible. The there's local TV and radio. Also team front office costs would necessitate more money to ensure higher tix sales to cover the other costs. Not to mention cost to cover failed franchises absorbed by the other teams.
Granted the details are murky as we don't have visibility but its in the ball park.

I do think the IFL/NAL cost structure is substantially lower and the CIF downtream is even lower. This is why I firmly believe AZ is killing it $$$ wise and Iowa is doing very well. Jax too, but they are covering league cost while they ramp up (my take).


I've taken the liberty of initiating a public records request with respect to the Predators last lease agreement, so once it's honored I'll have some concrete data to share on it. The $100K figure per game seems high however, if for no other reason than a few years ago I inquired about leasing Tampa Stadium (not the old sombrero, but the new outdoor one with the corporate name I've never remembered) on behalf of a business associate; they only wanted $150K, and that was for a one-time event, not a steady tenancy.

And again, paying to be on television is profoundly stupid for a professional sports league - especially in the landscape of the past several years. Whoever devised that notion should've been fired on the spot. Unless telecasting games provides a direct, steady and reliable revenue stream, there's no business purpose in doing it.

Wait though... local TV and radio? What AFL 2.0 team has had a local television and/or radio partner broadcasting its games in the past decade? I've never checked it so I could very well be wrong, but if five of the myriad teams that have come and gone since 2008 had so much as a local radio deal? I'd be surprised.

One sentence you posted does touch upon a point I was making vis-a-vis the Cobras needing to draw more than 3K/home date to break-even: front office costs. Per their lease, the Cobras are required to maintain a physical presence in Greensboro during its term. That at minimum means office space, an office staff, a ticket sales staff, and their associated payroll and overhead costs. Living in Raleigh as I do, I know what the general labor market here is, and I can tell you - those people aren't going to come cheap, especially if the team expects to hire quality folks who can hit the proverbial ground running.

I can see AFL 2.0 failed franchise legacy costs inflating budgets, but not to the extent where they're 9 times those of other leagues. There's no way a guy like Leonsis buys into a league under those conditions; it'd be just bad business practice.

LoveFB wrote:
The death knell was the tv contract. That was it. Paying millions to televise games nobody watched. That is where the major cost rested. This cost, plus the fact that the profitable franchises having to pour funds into the floundering franchises, mid-season, to keep them afloat to finish the season, doomed the league. It really is this simple. The fact that some teams paid players under the table did had some minor effect on cost, as did the fortune paid to the commissioner; but again, this was minor in relationship to the killer - tv cost.


Perhaps, but without hard numbers to analyze, it's impossible to tell. Again, just in case readers didn't catch it when I wrote it above, the idea of a professional sports league paying to be on television, rather than selling the broadcast rights and taking in revenue from them, is profoundly stupid. Why on Earth any league would see it as a viable business or marketing strategy, I'm not sure I'll ever understand.


And you thought 11k for Carolina was expensive when TB was $150k even for a one time event? Like I was saying - great ease deal.
Based on the articles I've seen Orlando - Amway was way high and I'm sure TB is too (as u found). And I said rent was $800k-1mm for AFL team with 8 game season - seems right in line, and very expensive. Another reason AFL is 8x more expensive to run then NAL/IFL as noted in the article.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic Reply to topic    ArenaFan.com Forum Index -> AFL View previous topic :: View next topic  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group