PDA

View Full Version : Sources say;


Caballo Diablo
05-11-2009, 12:25 PM
I know, the word sources has become a joke.
So take it for whatever you thinks it's worth, hear-say, rumor, lie, whatever.

I was told in a meeting last night that the AFL has been bought 100% by the NFL last week. They would like to have each AFL team afilliated with an NFL eventually placing an AFL team under each NFL team but not having more AFL than NFL teams.

The NFL thinks they can link sponsorship/advertisers and TV deals together to cover both leagues. It would only take a small percentage to be transferred to the AFL. No other company that had shown interest in the AFL can match the money and power of the NFL deal.

They are trying to work out the details before officially releasing the deal. They hope to officially release information around the end of May or in early June. Yeah, I know, at one point Platinum Equity had also agreed to a $100 million deal and backed out.

mrsummitcitypigskin
05-11-2009, 03:24 PM
I know, the word sources has become a joke.
So take it for whatever you thinks it's worth, hear-say, rumor, lie, whatever.

I was told in a meeting last night that the AFL has been bought 100% by the NFL last week. They would like to have each AFL team afilliated with an NFL eventually placing an AFL team under each NFL team but not having more AFL than NFL teams.

The NFL thinks they can link sponsorship/advertisers and TV deals together to cover both leagues. It would only take a small percentage to be transferred to the AFL. No other company that had shown interest in the AFL can match the money and power of the NFL deal.

They are trying to work out the details before officially releasing the deal. They hope to officially release information around the end of May or in early June. Yeah, I know, at one point Platinum Equity had also agreed to a $100 million deal and backed out.

You know Diablo, this is the second or third time I've heard this. Not sure
what to make of it at this point. It would be nice if these "sources" would
come forward.

Caballo Diablo
05-11-2009, 04:42 PM
I totally understand your feelings.
I think it was 2004 that the NFL was considering buying 49% of the AFL and then decided against it. At that point they didn't really want a minor lrague system, they already had the NCAA for free.

A couple of things have changed, the franchise fees had risen to the $20 million range, I think the expansion fees actually paid around 2004 were $15 to $18 million. Which were far too high. Now the league has substantial debt, $25 to $50 million depending on who you ask. The league was on the verge of collapse over the debt, the owners didn't really want to split it since they were drowning in red ink themselves. Platinum Equity was supposed to buy in for $100 mil, but backed out when they got a look at the books. So the entire was available for far less than what the 49% would have cost back then.

Also with NFLE going under the NFL doesn't have anywhere to send players that need some work now.

I can't divulge who or where I heard this or they'll never pass info along in the future. We won't know if it's true or not until they make an official announcement. Deals have been know to fall apart in the 11th hour so nothing is certain.

mrsummitcitypigskin
05-11-2009, 06:05 PM
This has been quite the topic on the CIFL Rush errrrrrrrrrrrr Slaughter forum.
You got guys going both ways on it. Makes for good conversation, though.

BananaCat
05-14-2009, 09:40 AM
I think it was 2004 that the NFL was considering buying 49% of the AFL and then decided against it.
I'm certain that was a 51% offer to the NFL, giving the NFL a controlling interest (which they opted not to take).

Bruiser
05-14-2009, 04:13 PM
FWIW....

http://www.clanram.com/forums/f73/nfl-owners-say-they-wont-buy-stake-arena-football-league-3049/

preeths
05-14-2009, 04:28 PM
I guess I'll be a bit surprised if something like this goes through. The NFL didn't take the shot a few years ago in better economic times when it had a commish in favor of the idea. Now it has a commish who killed NFLE and hasn't voiced any support for the AFL that I've seen, a cooler economy and an AFL that has lost value. The development aspect also doesn't really make sense. The positions are so different. Maybe the NFL sees a bargain and its talk about supporting all football is more than just lip service. We will see.

nksports
05-14-2009, 05:47 PM
Now it has a commish who killed NFLE and hasn't voiced any support for the AFL that I've seen, a cooler economy and an AFL that has lost value.

I may be wrong, but I don't see this coming either. We've had one NFL owner cash out of the AFL (VooDoo, I know that may have just been a pretext for him trying to move the Saints out of NO). They shut down NFLE despite the fact they were probably getting more vaulue out of it in terms of player development than any money they were losing (each team cost less to run than a year's salary for an NFL team's single franchise-designate player).
With many teams, and the league itself, cutting back on non-player staff, I just don't see it happening.

BananaCat
05-15-2009, 08:42 AM
FWIW....

http://www.clanram.com/forums/f73/nfl-owners-say-they-wont-buy-stake-arena-football-league-3049/
My bad. No wonder they didn't opt to take the deal.

BananaCat
05-15-2009, 08:46 AM
I guess I'll be a bit surprised if something like this goes through. The NFL didn't take the shot a few years ago in better economic times when it had a commish in favor of the idea. Now it has a commish who killed NFLE and hasn't voiced any support for the AFL that I've seen, a cooler economy and an AFL that has lost value. The development aspect also doesn't really make sense. The positions are so different. Maybe the NFL sees a bargain and its talk about supporting all football is more than just lip service. We will see.
The only way I see the NFL taking over is if they change the rules to make it into a more suitable developmental league for themselves.

preeths
05-15-2009, 01:26 PM
And even that would be hard to do. The confines of the indoor game make it so different for several positions.

exit322
05-15-2009, 02:14 PM
The indoor game, I'd guess, helps only quarterbacks and kickers prepare for the outdoor game.

The QBs because you must have the ball out in 3 seconds or you're splattered...kickers because you've got to have all kinds of accuracy.

It might help WRs and that sort a bit, but I'd guess not a whole lot.

preeths
05-15-2009, 04:18 PM
I agree that it does help QBs get that clock in their head, but other than that they can't really practice reading any defenses they'll see in the 100-yard game or develop a better sense of where pressure comes from in the outdoor game. Even the biggest success story in the Arena League, Kurt Warner, had to spend a season in NFLE to prove himself.

The fact that this rumor makes little sense may be the one thing it has going for it. This is indoor/arena football, after all.

daytonadan
05-15-2009, 04:26 PM
Warner did say that his AFL experience gave him a ``score on every play' mentality

gonzo13
05-15-2009, 06:13 PM
Yeah but what did Kurt Warner ever do in the NFL?? Oh...Nevermind

Caballo Diablo
05-17-2009, 03:44 PM
I think it can help other players also.
Many times you've got a very talented receiver but is a weak route runner.
You've got to prefect route running to be a force at the 50 yard game with less field to use. getting in and out of your cuts and catching the ball in tight spaces can help a receiver become a better clutch 3rd down guy.

Lineman have to be successful at one on one in the 50 yard game, if they can dominate here, moving up to a league that allows help and stunting should be easier. yeah, I know, the guys they'll go against are tougher.

Many colleges and NFL team practice on small indoor fields, the 50 yard game is just a full contact scrimmage, better than throwing the ball around in a "bubble."

preeths
05-17-2009, 04:03 PM
None of the things you mention are wrong, of course, but the developmental aspect is limited. Players will stay in shape and can practice some of the fundamentals indoors, no doubt. The number of players on the field, different rules and size of the field make positional play indoors very different from the 100-yard game, though. Really, receivers can practice running routes and catching the ball outside of game conditions. One-on-one is great, and a lineman can work on footwork and individual play in the indoor game, but it's impossible to imitate the feel and tactics of an outdoor formation with at least two extra linemen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the developmental aspect is missing entirely in indoor football, it's just limited especially compared to an outdoor league.