|
Criticism is allowed. Undue flaming is not. Take a second to think your post through before you submit.
Bans will be handed out.
Should go without saying, but don't link restreams here either. |
|
|
On February 15 2012 06:22 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:13 wklbishop wrote:On February 15 2012 05:51 legaton wrote:
So, i checked all the SEC fillings and this is the money invested in MLG
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
As you can see, in 6 years and a half, they have filled for a small fortune. I think this kind of numbers give a better idea on how expensive an operation like MLG is.
I'm not saying you should pay 20 dollars per event, but it is clear to me that have a desperate need to monetize the scene.
My informed point of view is you must be mentally challenged to invest any money on e-sports (except, maybe, for a small community based operation like TL, but without expecting any huge ROI). But well, good luck to MLG. Extremely insightful post right here. I know a lot of people are using the argument of why are tournaments popping up throughout 2011 as an symptom of its success and profitability, but people need to wait 5 years before making any judgement about SC2's ability to profit; because when people begin to invest it's not when the market is already turning a profit, but when people think there's potential to turn a profit. That said, I really think investing in Esports in the first place is an insane gamble. It could potentially pay off, but IMO the risks outweigh much of any potential profits. Lots of other less risky ventures to invest in that have just the same potential profits. but so far in this thread there's not a single credible source that shows competitive sc2 is not profitable. I don't see how people can say for certainty when they have no information outside of speculation
What kind of source do you want? MrBitter (IMO, a credible source) has made a statement about it already, if you're curious: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=310239¤tpage=7#127
Assuming that tournaments are making a profit is a far more absurd assumption than going with the idea that they're all running at a deficit.
|
On February 15 2012 06:22 nt-rAven wrote:
Looking back at MLG's balance prior to sc2 becoming an MLG event has no baring on the topic at hand, we are talking about MLG SC2 not MLG HALO / whatever other games! IF anything MLG has made more money off SC2 coming out then before, if anything sc2 is saving MLG not killing it but what is MLG doing to sc2? can the same be said?
Its not going to be a pretty balance sheet if one just looks at MLG starcraft. Think of all the PC's that had to be bought, the new main stages, the sound proof booths, the improved internet to prevent lag so that we dont have another dallas, the flight costs of the koreans and im probably missing a few costs along the way and you have a tournament that probably payed out a lot more than it took in to adopt starcraft.
People who are saying MLG wont survive are probably fooling themselves though. MLG has a very very large group of viewers who exclusively watch MLG and only casually watch other tournaments that I think dwarfs what other tournaments besides Dreamhack have.
|
On February 15 2012 06:15 Kira__ wrote:According to this site, dreamhack lost 310 000 SEK (~34 000 €) during 2009, and then 2 295 000 SEK ( 250 000 €) during 2010. They don't have any numbers for 2011 yet.
Once again, to the guy above, here is proof that dreamhack have gone negative past 2 years.
|
Anyone conisdering to pay for this needs to realize that MLG is testing the waters here.
If PPV arena is successful they will also extend this system to their 'normal' events.
Careful what you wish for here.
|
I love MLG, but unless I have literally nothing else to do all weekend to the oint where I could sit down and watch 20+ hours of starcraf t this wouldn't be nearly worth it for me. I wish then luck though 
|
sounds to me like MLG is kinda depressed and on a road of selfdestruction  if u need a shoulder to cry the community is here for u but dont screw us up
User was warned for this post
|
On February 15 2012 06:26 wklbishop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:05 iky43210 wrote:On February 15 2012 06:03 Chill wrote:On February 15 2012 06:00 iky43210 wrote:On February 15 2012 05:34 Chill wrote:On February 15 2012 05:25 m4inbrain wrote:On February 15 2012 05:22 Chill wrote:On February 15 2012 05:19 Chicane wrote:On February 15 2012 05:02 T.O.P. wrote:On February 15 2012 03:50 Kuni wrote:
Are none of the other good tournaments (Dreamhack, IPL etc) making any money? Because if it is only MLG, then there is something wrong that won't be fixed by PPV.
Viewers will drop significantly with PPV. I wonder if less exposure is a good thing. Doubt it. All the big tournaments lose money. Actually all the big tournaments profit. Link to their balance sheets please. Isnt the fact that theyre still around "evidence" enough? Do you really think a tournament will survive if they lose money for 10 years straight? Do you actually think an organisation would even consider to rescue a "business" which paints red numbers for 10 years? Well. I actually do believe that they are in the blacks, without seeing their balance sheets. Again, the fact that theyre still here is proof enough. Edit: although it was a joke, i stick to my opinion. A tournament that would make consistenly a - at the end of the year wouldnt be around for so long. Look at history. The majority of major ESPORTS companies have been farces based on non-payment and then a quick declaration of bankruptcy. It's easy to get some initial investments, take a loss, and then hope that the numbers stack up to make it sustainable. MLG trimmed all their fat, cut all their extra production, fired all the writers, and started charging PPV on the stream. If that doesn't ring bells in your ears then I don't know what will. I don't think this is a case of a greed, I think it's a desire to actually tun a profit. yes, because obviously the case of 10 years using an ad based model should try to trim fats and use PPV in order to turn profit after a substantial growth in viewership. Again full of speculation with no evidence backing. You can't claim something like "esport makes no profit" without some evidence Read what people working for these companies have posted time and time again. I don't have access to their balance sheets so I can only cite what people have publically said, what the debt figures posted in this thread say, and I can reference what people have privately told me (without disclosing who they are). Conversely, what is your basis for posting that they are making money? I have reedited my posts that you quoted for some other opinions. I am simply basing my reasoning why I believe they're making money on the fact that its still alive after 10 years. If it can sustain itself for 10 years with less viewers, I don't see how having drastically more now due to sc2 would do the opposite. your entire assumption of enough investments to pay off the debt each year for 10+ years is both illogical and improbable. Just because you know a few "esport people" that are doing in the red doesn't mean all of them are. Hmm, the problem with your line of logic is that business will continue to run as long as they are making more money than their variable costs. GM is a good example that has run in the red for years. If you're operating at a loss, sometimes it's better to keep going because suddenly shutting down will put you at a even bigger loss due to fixed costs from long contracts and year-old equipment. It's like you bought this piece of sound equipment 10 years ago that will only work for 10 years for $1000, but you're only going to get $900 worth of value out of it, you might as well operate despite the fixed costs making it not profitable because at least it'll help minimize the losses.
GM has a reputable brand name and multiple liquidity assets, hence they can get the loans required to function. MLG has nothing behind it, and they're just not going to get the investments or loans like GM can if they truly have been running in the red.
btw, GM has been in the red for just 5 years. 2004 was still profitable for them until they filed for bankruptcy on 2009
High expenses does not mean its not profitable, it just simply means it costs alot to run MLG. We don't know their revenue
|
On February 15 2012 06:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:16 Grovbolle wrote:
Just a question, why do you want their balance sheets? Wouldn't the annual earnings report be more suitable? I'd like to see a financial breakdown: revenue, expense, investment, comparisons from event to event of what they changed and how it affected revenue. Something really seems off.
Well, think about what happened last year. Suddenly they had a boom in customers that they were not particularly prepared to handle. Their price structure was laid out to handle a much smaller group of people. In order to deal with the influx they had to invest in a lot of features that were not necessary before such as a satellite truck, more moving vans for all of those freakin chairs.
Now they have to revisit how they are charging us to basically sustain what they have put in place. Companies going into the red to invest for the future is a very common thing. As long as they have not overshot their price point by too much and the customers continue to watch their content they should be fine from here and we as the viewer will see some stability in their prices.
|
Rod Breslau @Slasher
Confirmed: Tomorrow will be the first 2012 @LiveOnThree with guests, feat. MLG head honcho @MLGSundance and #IEM Sau Paolo Champion Violet!
Main topic of discussion will of course be the new PPV announcement and pricing plans, with open phones as a possibility
Sundance DiGiovanni @MLGSundance
@Slasher @sirscoots I thought we'd be discussing my new career as a Rockette.
So we are likely going to get more info tomorrow about this.
|
There should be 480p stream for 5$. Even with adverts.
|
On February 15 2012 06:27 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:22 iky43210 wrote:On February 15 2012 06:13 wklbishop wrote:On February 15 2012 05:51 legaton wrote:
So, i checked all the SEC fillings and this is the money invested in MLG
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
As you can see, in 6 years and a half, they have filled for a small fortune. I think this kind of numbers give a better idea on how expensive an operation like MLG is.
I'm not saying you should pay 20 dollars per event, but it is clear to me that have a desperate need to monetize the scene.
My informed point of view is you must be mentally challenged to invest any money on e-sports (except, maybe, for a small community based operation like TL, but without expecting any huge ROI). But well, good luck to MLG. Extremely insightful post right here. I know a lot of people are using the argument of why are tournaments popping up throughout 2011 as an symptom of its success and profitability, but people need to wait 5 years before making any judgement about SC2's ability to profit; because when people begin to invest it's not when the market is already turning a profit, but when people think there's potential to turn a profit. That said, I really think investing in Esports in the first place is an insane gamble. It could potentially pay off, but IMO the risks outweigh much of any potential profits. Lots of other less risky ventures to invest in that have just the same potential profits. but so far in this thread there's not a single credible source that shows competitive sc2 is not profitable. I don't see how people can say for certainty when they have no information outside of speculation What kind of source do you want? MrBitter (IMO, a credible source) has made a statement about it already, if you're curious: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=310239¤tpage=7#127Assuming that tournaments are making a profit is a far more absurd assumption than going with the idea that they're all running at a deficit.
I've spoken with many of these sponsors, and I've asked them the very straight question: "How the hell do you make any money in this business?", and the answer is always the same: "We don't."
The big, powerhouse sponsors - the multi-billion dollar corporations that have infinite money to throw around, continue to invest in e-sports, not for profit, but to modernize their image, and to appear "cool" in today's market. True story.
This statement from Bitter has a negative tone to it BUT IT'S THE WAY THINGS HAVE TO BE!! It's not something bad.
Sponsors invest for their image. It's getting exposure with money. It's not lose-lose situation but lose-win.
If Sundance is having bad numbers at the end of the year it's bad, but still it might be his management and decision. Under no way the community can be blamed. Starcraft is blessed with one extremely charitable community and i am really mad that right now people say we are cheap.
|
Starcraft 2 tournaments (except GSL) are in Perfect Competition if you increase price (now its 0) most people will just watch assembly, dh, etc because other tournaments are not inferior, so unless they have superior production (like GSL) or superior casters (for me personally Tastosis > all) , then I dont see reason for making it PPV, especially Koreans of different level are now willing to fly everyone from Tails to Nestea...and for us Europeans its much more appealing to see European players play and for now MLG has More Koreans and N.American players which a bit more than slightly reduces my want to watch
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On February 15 2012 06:06 Frankon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 05:22 Chill wrote:On February 15 2012 05:19 Chicane wrote:On February 15 2012 05:02 T.O.P. wrote:On February 15 2012 03:50 Kuni wrote:
Are none of the other good tournaments (Dreamhack, IPL etc) making any money? Because if it is only MLG, then there is something wrong that won't be fixed by PPV.
Viewers will drop significantly with PPV. I wonder if less exposure is a good thing. Doubt it. All the big tournaments lose money. Actually all the big tournaments profit. Link to their balance sheets please. Im a bit lazy since im posting with mobile. DH is required to submit a anual report since its a organisation. You can view it on some swedish site(link was posted on tl last year). They werent in red
DH is a LAN more than an ESPORTS event. I agree it could be in the black, but I have no idea.
HSC is an indy production with very few employees. It is not on the scale of a GSL, MLG or IPL. I believe this is the type of event that is sustainable and find it easy to believe they made money.
|
On February 15 2012 06:22 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:13 wklbishop wrote:On February 15 2012 05:51 legaton wrote:
So, i checked all the SEC fillings and this is the money invested in MLG
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
As you can see, in 6 years and a half, they have filled for a small fortune. I think this kind of numbers give a better idea on how expensive an operation like MLG is.
I'm not saying you should pay 20 dollars per event, but it is clear to me that have a desperate need to monetize the scene.
My informed point of view is you must be mentally challenged to invest any money on e-sports (except, maybe, for a small community based operation like TL, but without expecting any huge ROI). But well, good luck to MLG. Extremely insightful post right here. I know a lot of people are using the argument of why are tournaments popping up throughout 2011 as an symptom of its success and profitability, but people need to wait 5 years before making any judgement about SC2's ability to profit; because when people begin to invest it's not when the market is already turning a profit, but when people think there's potential to turn a profit. That said, I really think investing in Esports in the first place is an insane gamble. It could potentially pay off, but IMO the risks outweigh much of any potential profits. Lots of other less risky ventures to invest in that have just the same potential profits. but so far in this thread there's not a single credible source that shows competitive sc2 is not profitable. I don't see how people can say for certainty when they have no information outside of speculation
Hahahah, what else do you want? SEC fillings are as official as you are going to get for a private-equity company. And what else do you need? In 6 years and a half, the MLG got 50 millions from venture capital investors and sold 6,5 millions on debt based securities (therefore, they owe at least 6,5 millions).
At the same time, in the SEC fillings, they say the annual revenue is on the 5 to 25 millions range. So, it means they have invested 50 millions in 7 years to generate a paltry 25m (if you are optimist) per year turnover
____
As a side note, the ESL got 1 million euros from a Credit Agricole (french bank) investment fund two years ago. Even if it is a smaller operation than MLG, the ESL also depends on venture capital.
|
I'm extremely disappointed with the way MLG has handled memberships recently. The auto-renewal was annoying but acceptable until silver no longer got HD access. And now even gold doesn't get HD access for the Winter Arena. If MLG needs to switch to PPV funding for more distant future events, that's fine, but current members, including silver members, should have had access to the Winter Arena.
See my post in the SFW funny pics thread.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=136013¤tpage=762#15233
|
On February 15 2012 06:31 ceaRshaf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:27 babylon wrote:On February 15 2012 06:22 iky43210 wrote:On February 15 2012 06:13 wklbishop wrote:On February 15 2012 05:51 legaton wrote:
So, i checked all the SEC fillings and this is the money invested in MLG
2011-11-23 - debt + option -2 500 000 dollars
2011-08-12 - debt + option - 3 083 328
2010-12-30 - equity - 3 333 353 dollars
2009-08-31 - equity - 3 499 995 dollars
2008-12-31 - equity + option - 7 500 000 dollars
2007-06-18 - equity - 1 400 000 dollars
2006-11-20 - equity - 25 000 000 dollars
2006-07-31 - equity - 10 000 000 dollars
As you can see, in 6 years and a half, they have filled for a small fortune. I think this kind of numbers give a better idea on how expensive an operation like MLG is.
I'm not saying you should pay 20 dollars per event, but it is clear to me that have a desperate need to monetize the scene.
My informed point of view is you must be mentally challenged to invest any money on e-sports (except, maybe, for a small community based operation like TL, but without expecting any huge ROI). But well, good luck to MLG. Extremely insightful post right here. I know a lot of people are using the argument of why are tournaments popping up throughout 2011 as an symptom of its success and profitability, but people need to wait 5 years before making any judgement about SC2's ability to profit; because when people begin to invest it's not when the market is already turning a profit, but when people think there's potential to turn a profit. That said, I really think investing in Esports in the first place is an insane gamble. It could potentially pay off, but IMO the risks outweigh much of any potential profits. Lots of other less risky ventures to invest in that have just the same potential profits. but so far in this thread there's not a single credible source that shows competitive sc2 is not profitable. I don't see how people can say for certainty when they have no information outside of speculation What kind of source do you want? MrBitter (IMO, a credible source) has made a statement about it already, if you're curious: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=310239¤tpage=7#127Assuming that tournaments are making a profit is a far more absurd assumption than going with the idea that they're all running at a deficit. Show nested quote +I've spoken with many of these sponsors, and I've asked them the very straight question: "How the hell do you make any money in this business?", and the answer is always the same: "We don't."
The big, powerhouse sponsors - the multi-billion dollar corporations that have infinite money to throw around, continue to invest in e-sports, not for profit, but to modernize their image, and to appear "cool" in today's market. True story. This statement from Bitter has a negative tone to it BUT IT'S THE WAY THINGS HAVE TO BE!! It's not something bad. Sponsors invest for their image. It's getting exposure with money. It's not lose-lose situation but lose-win. If Sundance is having bad numbers at the end of the year it's bad, but still it might be his management and decision. Under no way the community can be blamed. Starcraft is blessed with one extremely charitable community and i am really mad that right now people say we are cheap.
Yeah, i also don't get it.
IEM for isntance is logically sponsored by Intel.
Intel is paying that as part of their marketing. As long as Intel (or any other main sponsor) is happy with their return on investment there is no need for a tournament to make a profit, why should there?
The problem arises when a sponsor is not feeling like he's getting back enough for it's bucks.. This is more likely to happen if you write deep red numbers, logically  .
Now when you look at MLG's "numbers" and compare them to others, you might get a clue why MLG is trying to make something happen because the other option would be to resize, which would be like admitting defeat?
|
While MLG produces quality games, and has decent casting, There product is not worth the $20s unless production and downtime is reduced greatly. Im paying $20 to watch hot pocket ad's and a crowed of people sitting in chairs.
|
Here we go ! PPV model SC2 games for 20$ !
Why u want to make so much money so fast??!! Do u fear armaggedon??!
My god this is sooo ridiculously saaad !
|
On February 15 2012 06:29 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:26 wklbishop wrote:On February 15 2012 06:05 iky43210 wrote:On February 15 2012 06:03 Chill wrote:On February 15 2012 06:00 iky43210 wrote:On February 15 2012 05:34 Chill wrote:On February 15 2012 05:25 m4inbrain wrote:On February 15 2012 05:22 Chill wrote:On February 15 2012 05:19 Chicane wrote:On February 15 2012 05:02 T.O.P. wrote:
[quote]
All the big tournaments lose money. Actually all the big tournaments profit. Link to their balance sheets please. Isnt the fact that theyre still around "evidence" enough? Do you really think a tournament will survive if they lose money for 10 years straight? Do you actually think an organisation would even consider to rescue a "business" which paints red numbers for 10 years? Well. I actually do believe that they are in the blacks, without seeing their balance sheets. Again, the fact that theyre still here is proof enough. Edit: although it was a joke, i stick to my opinion. A tournament that would make consistenly a - at the end of the year wouldnt be around for so long. Look at history. The majority of major ESPORTS companies have been farces based on non-payment and then a quick declaration of bankruptcy. It's easy to get some initial investments, take a loss, and then hope that the numbers stack up to make it sustainable. MLG trimmed all their fat, cut all their extra production, fired all the writers, and started charging PPV on the stream. If that doesn't ring bells in your ears then I don't know what will. I don't think this is a case of a greed, I think it's a desire to actually tun a profit. yes, because obviously the case of 10 years using an ad based model should try to trim fats and use PPV in order to turn profit after a substantial growth in viewership. Again full of speculation with no evidence backing. You can't claim something like "esport makes no profit" without some evidence Read what people working for these companies have posted time and time again. I don't have access to their balance sheets so I can only cite what people have publically said, what the debt figures posted in this thread say, and I can reference what people have privately told me (without disclosing who they are). Conversely, what is your basis for posting that they are making money? I have reedited my posts that you quoted for some other opinions. I am simply basing my reasoning why I believe they're making money on the fact that its still alive after 10 years. If it can sustain itself for 10 years with less viewers, I don't see how having drastically more now due to sc2 would do the opposite. your entire assumption of enough investments to pay off the debt each year for 10+ years is both illogical and improbable. Just because you know a few "esport people" that are doing in the red doesn't mean all of them are. Hmm, the problem with your line of logic is that business will continue to run as long as they are making more money than their variable costs. GM is a good example that has run in the red for years. If you're operating at a loss, sometimes it's better to keep going because suddenly shutting down will put you at a even bigger loss due to fixed costs from long contracts and year-old equipment. It's like you bought this piece of sound equipment 10 years ago that will only work for 10 years for $1000, but you're only going to get $900 worth of value out of it, you might as well operate despite the fixed costs making it not profitable because at least it'll help minimize the losses. GM has a reputable brand name and multiple liquidity assets, hence they can get the loans required to function. MLG has nothing behind it, and they're just not going to get the investments or loans like GM can if they truly have been running in the red. High expenses does not mean its not profitable, it just simply means it costs alot to run MLG. We don't know their revenue
Ahh, I guess I made the edit too late.
but I wanted to point out the equation in my edit, Assets = Stockholder's Equity + Liabilities.
And the guy who listed SEC filings showed mostly Equity which I'm not sure if you can really apply logically. Fact of the matter is SE is very illogical sometimes b/c investors themselves don't tend to necessarily be logical and fall for the hype that is Esports. Hell, equity allows you to run on a deficit far easier than liabilities allow you.
Also, GM wasn't going to get the loans. They were saved by circumstances (extreme circumstances got the unions to concede even) and the government and then they got more loans when the government jumped in and sent a signal to the market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
