EPTAnyway it looks more like a publicity/negotiating stunt from G2/Fnatic. Force Riot EU to start bothering to grow the league or they'll just go cash out else where. Revenu sharing, better scheduling, better exposure, merchandising system through the league etc. All of this they can do without franchising yet haven't done yet. Franchising merely offers the most power to the companies themselves while shifting power away from fans and players.
2017 Esports General Discussion - Page 24
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
Anyway it looks more like a publicity/negotiating stunt from G2/Fnatic. Force Riot EU to start bothering to grow the league or they'll just go cash out else where. Revenu sharing, better scheduling, better exposure, merchandising system through the league etc. All of this they can do without franchising yet haven't done yet. Franchising merely offers the most power to the companies themselves while shifting power away from fans and players. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On August 02 2017 12:14 Slusher wrote: It's also possible that these applications are part of that negotiation process I mean it got leaked that they applied instantly Yup that is pretty much what I am saying. It is a classic at this point when it comes to Riot / team negotiations. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On August 02 2017 16:49 Numy wrote: I find it interesting that "investors" and "franchising" are linked together. It's essentially saying that the only way to grow esports and for franchising to work is it outside money flows into it. Is this really sustainable or a desirable outcome? Revenue sharing was a big topic point earlier in the year which doesn't actually need franchising to happen. Business owners will always want franchising if their goal is to maximize profits as it allows them the biggest negotiating power to sell their business. We've seen that happen to every NA organization bar TSM. The question is if having esports sell out complete is a good thing in the long term? Again I'm a bit more wary of that, we've seen what outside investors do and think about esports before which has never been my vision of it. I really don't want everything to be trust fund babies operating in the red. I agree on a lot here. I am also very skeptical that at current spending things are sustainable or even profitable. Then again attracting investors and generating growth while ignoring profit seems to be totally normal these days in business, especially in the US with the whole VC culture. And you can not fault teams for wanting this. Pretty sure HSGG is a millionaire now no matter what. Btw the whole thing is a magnitude worse in Overwatch League imo. Money invested there seems completely disproportionate to current interest in OW esports. So might as well try to cash in now before OWL burns esports for investors. :D | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Also, although often blowhardy, Richard Lewis actually seems the most sober of the long term figures about the prospects of OWL and how its likely to turn off investors. Venture capital in esports, so far, has done little to increase sustainability or the exposure of the games, really all its done is drive up salaries and costs (living in LA and Berlin does not help the LCS teams either when it comes to costs). | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On August 03 2017 02:56 cLutZ wrote: I dont see how it works long term either. The BAM contract is nice, but the details released don't make me think its going to allow owners to make back that $10 mil quickly just from rights money and prize money. So far, the best way of making money has been selling LCS slots like Hai, who's gonna cash out another $2mil+ with Flyquest's slot. Also, although often blowhardy, Richard Lewis actually seems the most sober of the long term figures about the prospects of OWL and how its likely to turn off investors. Venture capital in esports, so far, has done little to increase sustainability or the exposure of the games, really all its done is drive up salaries and costs (living in LA and Berlin does not help the LCS teams either when it comes to costs). The 10m isn't a lump sum. It's 5m up front and the rest is prorated. The BAM deal is 50m/split iirc, and with a 1/3rd share going to the teams, that's an average of 1.6(r)m per team. OWL had the issue, last time I looked into it, of having a 20m buy in and having the teams being geolocated. That's a steep buy in for a league that has no track record, unlike the LCS, and gelocation is something untested in esports. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On August 03 2017 02:56 cLutZ wrote: I dont see how it works long term either. The BAM contract is nice, but the details released don't make me think its going to allow owners to make back that $10 mil quickly just from rights money and prize money. So far, the best way of making money has been selling LCS slots like Hai, who's gonna cash out another $2mil+ with Flyquest's slot. Also, although often blowhardy, Richard Lewis actually seems the most sober of the long term figures about the prospects of OWL and how its likely to turn off investors. Venture capital in esports, so far, has done little to increase sustainability or the exposure of the games, really all its done is drive up salaries and costs (living in LA and Berlin does not help the LCS teams either when it comes to costs). That's basically how I view things. Esports went through this before with people throwing outside money into the scene that drove up costs so much while not really generating any additional revenue. I remember when that bubble broke people were saying esports may never recover. Thankfully streaming came along when it did. Scarra casually spoke on stream about the CLG acquisition. The mentioned everyone in LCS operates in the red except for C9 to his knowledge. They just been hemorrhaging money waiting for this moment. We'll see how it goes. I don't see any improvement to the game or viewing experience resulting from this escalation so don't really get why it's a good thing. How is this any better than a game like CSGO which supposedly makes organizations lots of money while paying their players good sums and having way lower burnout? OWL is a whole other story. It's a textbook example of how bubbles are formed. Question will be if it bursts now or if they manage to make it work. If it does burst I just hope there won't be collateral harm in esports. Shouldn't suffer from insane stupidity. There's zero history to warrant what they asking but for blizzard it doesn't really matter if it fails since they get paid anyway I guess. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 03 2017 03:15 Gahlo wrote: The 10m isn't a lump sum. It's 5m up front and the rest is prorated. The BAM deal is 50m/split iirc, and with a 1/3rd share going to the teams, that's an average of 1.6(r)m per team. . That is still a horrible return. | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
It's also just the BAM deal. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Yes, but what are the other deals? Teams get that, but they also have to use it to pay non-player expenses that seem to get higher every year. On a deal like this, I think you'd expect to get back your investment in 3 years, that is how standard VC works (and LCS isn't that different, in fact, it has lower upside than most VC). Is LCS, basically, still going to be a league where basically you break even and try to leverage it for sponsorship offers? I have a secret for all the teams out there that have been saying, "people won't sponsor us because they are afraid we will drop out," that's just an excuse and they aren't going to give you better deals because of franchising, they will just change their negotiating position. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On August 03 2017 05:23 cLutZ wrote: Yes, but what are the other deals? Teams get that, but they also have to use it to pay non-player expenses that seem to get higher every year. On a deal like this, I think you'd expect to get back your investment in 3 years, that is how standard VC works (and LCS isn't that different, in fact, it has lower upside than most VC). Is LCS, basically, still going to be a league where basically you break even and try to leverage it for sponsorship offers? I have a secret for all the teams out there that have been saying, "people won't sponsor us because they are afraid we will drop out," that's just an excuse and they aren't going to give you better deals because of franchising, they will just change their negotiating position. I'm more inclined to believe people that are actually in the scene. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
Then there's the issue of again why was a circuit system we have in every other esport and in league fine for sponsors but now league structure is too risky? It's similar risks of irrelevance if you fail continually, league just makes it so much harder to fail so risk is less. Anyway I wouldn't be surprised if there's truth there but at the same time it's more part of a few compounding issues. Remember costs got inflated super high due to VC teams so sponsorship in term would have to inflate in order to cover the costs. It could just be a case of the money teams needed was too much for the returns to sponsors they were promising. edit: It's harder to believe league owners than most others due to the history of blatant lying around issues and attacking journalists for posting true information only to reveal later that exact same information. | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 03 2017 18:59 Numy wrote: edit: It's harder to believe league owners than most others due to the history of blatant lying around issues and attacking journalists for posting true information only to reveal later that exact same information. I think this is particularly important. A consistent pattern in League has been: 1) Reporter reports story. 2) Team calls reporter a liar. 3) Reddit overwhelming sides with team. 4) Story happens. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On August 04 2017 06:54 cLutZ wrote: I think this is particularly important. A consistent pattern in League has been: 1) Reporter reports story. 2) Team calls reporter a liar. 3) Reddit overwhelming sides with team. 4) Story happens. This happens all the time in traditional sports. Hell, this happens all the time when stuff is leaked in journalism period. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On August 04 2017 08:31 cLutZ wrote: I agree, but the Esports community is probably the most anti-journalist despite arguably having the highest accuracy rates. Guys like Wolf and RLewis are way more accurate than Shefter, and all 3 are way more accurate than the average political journo. Surprise, people don't like stuff that isn't ready to be announced or isn't even finalized to be announced. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
I feel like the esports fanbase (particularly lol) is full of overly credulous optimists | ||
| ||
