EPTMLG raises $11.3m in additional funding - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
| ||
|
ilikeredheads
Canada1995 Posts
| ||
|
sLBoGoRoH
Netherlands126 Posts
| ||
|
CableSCES
United States367 Posts
I hope the Arenas continue to be successful as well, considering that they've announced 2 more before Anaheim. It can only serve to add more revenue to the eSports river. | ||
|
Biggun69
187 Posts
| ||
|
HejaBVB
Germany125 Posts
On March 14 2012 03:40 Josh_rakoons wrote: This is awesome in every respect... Glad to see PPV worked out. The money doesn't comes from the PPV, lolz! | ||
|
FairForever
Canada2392 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:07 Assirra wrote: And yet Sundance will still say they don't make enough money the moment they charge for something else. They didn't make any money, this isn't income, this is equity investment. Theoretically an equity investment shouldn't have any impact on their bottom line, so if they weren't making enough money before, then they aren't now. Well, from a Finance perspective, Weighted Average Cost of Capital = Debt portion * Weight + Required Return for Equity Investors * Weight. I don't believe the Market Debt / Equity ratio has changed (not looking at Book Value here) so the WACC, required return for the company, should be the same. | ||
|
SiguR
Canada2039 Posts
| ||
|
FairForever
Canada2392 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:30 SiguR wrote: Wouldn't this influx of investor money have been considered when budgeting the 2012 season? These new higher prize pools and payed flights were probably done while expecting this influx. I don't think this is just money falling from the sky. This isn't free money to give away, theoretically equity investments are infrastructure support payments that should help MLG be able to market itself better, improve operations, etc. that will help grow the business. I'm not sure increasing prize pools will be a worthwhile investment unless MLG thinks it will attract bigger names / sponsors. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
Its not money brought in from the PPV, but the successful PPV could very well be why they received more money from investors who like that a sustainable tournament was ran. | ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:29 FairForever wrote: They didn't make any money, this isn't income, this is equity investment. Theoretically an equity investment shouldn't have any impact on their bottom line, so if they weren't making enough money before, then they aren't now. Well, from a Finance perspective, Weighted Average Cost of Capital = Debt portion * Weight + Required Return for Equity Investors * Weight. I don't believe the Market Debt / Equity ratio has changed (not looking at Book Value here) so the WACC, required return for the company, should be the same. I doubt you get investor's if the situation was as dire as Sundance makes it sound. Either that or he has to best way to convince people ever. | ||
|
Lunares
United States909 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:41 Assirra wrote: I doubt you get investor's if the situation was as dire as Sundance makes it sound. Either that or he has to best way to convince people ever. Investor says "you are negative for the financial year (which ends this month i believe, financial quarters are weird). Get positive by the end of it or we won't invest in you anymore" That is a dire situation. If they don't go positive -> no investment -> company fails. I doubt it was that serious but people investing now doesn't mean it wasn't serious before. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
It would be great news if the funding was for something specific, such as a torunament setup or a specific playing venue or something concrete. If it just for normal cash flow, that's worrying. We can't really know without looking at the financials and the only people with access to this are those that invested. So overall I guess we should be happy, I just have this nagging feeling that they are getting pressured to produce which suggests an underlying fragility. | ||
|
mlspmatt
Canada404 Posts
| ||
|
Spaceneil8
United States317 Posts
On March 14 2012 04:38 legaton wrote: Sundance must sell a hell of a pitch, because it is hard to believe he's still able to secure more money for MLG. Since 2006, they have secured 67,6 millions in just 6 years! 2012-03-12 - equity + options - 11 300 698 dollars 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 They have invested 11 millions per year for a generated revenue of what, 5 to 25 millions dollars? It's 5 to 25 million per year, not total. | ||
|
jax1492
United States1632 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:53 mlspmatt wrote: This is financing right? Not revenue? That's the scary part. What exactly do they need an extra 11million for? Nothing wrong with capital raising if you are planning on expanding something but if it goes to operational expenses, then we have a problem. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:48 Probulous wrote: I don't know about this. It seems like having to give up equity in exchange for cash based off of a new model that was only just implemented is a little risky. Yes it worked and congrats but it certainly doesn't speak to the stability of the industry. Yes, they managed to get more funding but VCs are not going to throw away an investment that doesn't look terrible. They have already invested a lot and the presence of remaining shares suggests that it was probably current investors who stumped up more cash. It would be great news if the funding was for something specific, such as a torunament setup or a specific playing venue or something concrete. If it just for normal cash flow, that's worrying. We can't really know without looking at the financials and the only people with access to this are those that invested. So overall I guess we should be happy, I just have this nagging feeling that they are getting pressured to produce which suggests an underlying fragility. For sure MLG is being pressured to produce, but then again, they set up those expectations themselves of how quickly they think e-sports can grow and more importantly how much money it can generate. But the money isn't invested for anything concrete. That's why investors give money to managers. They're trusting MLG to set up tournaments and venues that are more attractive and bring in more people, and in turn they will look at the financials later on in the year and make that judgment for themselves. I don't think it's "good" or "bad" that MLG gave up stock in the company. It only matters how those board members use their power. If they focus MLG on profitability, then yes, some things will probably make you unhappy - things will cost more, players and consumers will get less, etc. But certainly you might prefer MLG to have a longer life than to go out in a blaze of generous glory where they give everything to the players and fans for nothing and then go bust. | ||
|
vVvParadise
United States43 Posts
| ||
|
zaii
Guam2611 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:07 Assirra wrote: And yet Sundance will still say they don't make enough money the moment they charge for something else. This is VC.... | ||
| ||
