is Uncle Joe embarrassed??

[WHAFAN]

After numerous emails asking Newman where the Chicago Rockstars will be playing home games, I finally got an answer, but not from him.

The team website says nothing about home games. My voice mails went unanswered for 2 weeks. I was asking Joe if this team is even still in exsistance. All I got was his typical smart ass, your a moron answers. I sent an email to Brad Hester. He told me Chicago will be playing their first 9 home games in 9 different high school gyms. Joe must have been pissed off like a MOFO!! I always bug him about how mismanaged and under financed these owners are, and this proves it. A team in the 3rd largest city in the country will be playing in front of 80 people in a third rate gym. I suggested they play all ABA games in Joe's driveway. Since his entire family is on the payroll, perhaps his wife could serve snacks and cold drinks at halftime, his daughter could grab some pom-pons, since dance teams seem to be integral parts of each team, and good ol Brad could set up the 6 folding chairs for the sell-out crowd. Joe doesn't answer me anymore !! The truth hurts I guess.

[Fells]

Somehow I don't think Chicago will even start the season. Wow, this is getting worse by the minute.

[Fells]

Here is the thing with Mr. Newmann: This is a man who wants the league to succeed and to grow, but his PR leaves quite a bit to be desired. When I was pondering a story on the league, he was kind at first, but then got nasty when I asked pointed questions. His responses to those who inquire about the league, including many on this board, are demeaning, rude, and downright crass. If one wants positive exposure from the media, and the fans, calling them "morons", "jerks", etc is not the way to go about things.

If Mr. Newmann would hold his tongue a bit, I think he would find that the media and fans would be more willing to cut him a bit of slack. The way he is now, it makes it difficult for me being in the media to want to cover the team. As I think Alex Wolff is a world class human being, I will cover the team hoping they will succeed.

[WHAFAN]

Newman's biggest problem is that when someone questions something, he get defensive and will not answer anything that suggests there being trouble. All I was attempting to do for 2 weeks was ask him where Chicago will play home games. I was called moron, imbecile, full of gas, told I need a pacifier, and more medication. What the hell??!! I mentioned that the Rockstars will be a bust in Chicago just like the Chicago Skyliners in 2000, and the Chicago Soldiers 2 years ago, who never came close to getting off of the ground. The word is out on Joe's family all being on the payroll, and he is nothing more than a bitter old man who cashed these idiots league franchise checks one after another. I bet him at least 25% of the teams disappear by December 1st. His reply?? AND I QUOTE......."no wonder your clocks are round" What the hell does that mean??

[psbf]

I've asked Joe questions before and the answers have always been nice and very informative, as well as him thanking me for my support.

[bdaly]

I really think there is a tone issue with the way some people ask questions. For example, I wouldn't answer e-mails with suggestions that included playing games in my driveway if I were the CEO. I think Newman's biggest mistake in the past has been answering e-mails that aren't productive and going on the offensive.

Granted, I wouldn't run the league the way it has been run in past years. But, I can hardly blame him for not responding to certain e-mails. I highly doubt CEOs in other leagues would bother answering certain e-mails. I've e-mailed him once and I received a good response.

[WHAFAN]

The missing ingredient in all of these posts is the fact that this entire league is a huge joke. 100 teams in the future? These teams can't afford to travel, can't afford hotel rooms, no 2 teams play the same amount of games, teams disappear in mid season, yet Joe Newman continues to cash franchise fee checks anywhere from $10-20K each. No wonder he wants 100 teams. He's making his money. If teams fold, other hick cities show with with another franchise fee. He can't lose. Pro teams playing "home" games in rec centers and high school gyms? Come on now. There are no individual player stats listed, no team stats, nothing. How can the ABA be a showcase for scouts when 10 minutes after a game is played, there are no records of anything? God knows they will never list attendance. I guess all you need is $10,000, a rec center and a few parolees, a dance team and your an owner. Why do we waste time on this abortion??

[bdaly]

The missing ingredient in all of these posts is the fact that this entire league is a huge joke. 100 teams in the future? These teams can't afford to travel, can't afford hotel rooms, no 2 teams play the same amount of games, teams disappear in mid season, yet Joe Newman continues to cash franchise fee checks anywhere from $10-20K each. No wonder he wants 100 teams.
Actually, the reason for 100 teams is that then teams won't have to travel as much and they won't need hotel rooms. The regions in the ABA that fail miserably do so because there aren't enough teams in that region. That leads to higher travel costs and a need to stay at hotels. The league's concept is sound, but the past execution isn't. If this league can get 100 sound teams, it'll be a strong profitable minor league option with little travel and lots of regional play and rivalries. Will it happen? Who knows.

[preeths]

Actually, the reason for 100 teams is that then teams won't have to travel as much and they won't need hotel rooms. The regions in the ABA that fail miserably do so because there aren't enough teams in that region. That leads to higher travel costs and a need to stay at hotels. The league's concept is sound, but the past execution isn't. If this league can get 100 sound teams, it'll be a strong profitable minor league option with little travel and lots of regional play and rivalries. Will it happen? Who knows.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas. I don't know how anyone can say the league's concept is sound. Upon what do you base that evaluation? Certainly not history. In fact, history shows that giving teams to underfunded owners is disastrous, both for the poor teams and the good ones. Above all, all sports league have a product to provide, namely games. When they cease to deliver that product (through game cancellations), or deliver it sporadically (through posponements and a constantly-shifting schedule), you have to ask yourself why the league exists.

[BreakersFan]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas. I don't know how anyone can say the league's concept is sound. Upon what do you base that evaluation? Certainly not history. In fact, history shows that giving teams to underfunded owners is disastrous, both for the poor teams and the good ones. Above all, all sports league have a product to provide, namely games. When they cease to deliver that product (through game cancellations), or deliver it sporadically (through posponements and a constantly-shifting schedule), you have to ask yourself why the league exists.

The league exists to provide income for the CEO. The reason for 100 teams is for the expansion fees. The league has no interest in seeing its teams succeed because its only revenue comes from new teams.

Folding teams? Who cares? Cancelled games? Who cares? Is there no on else who sees this? No refs because they won't take the team's check? So what?

There's another $10K expansion fee around the corner in east jabip.

And the reason fro no stats is also simple. Some teams do not have the same players from game to game. In the past, teams have paid local playground players $15 to show up that night and play. You can't keep stats on payers when you don' even know their names. Sometimes visiting teams show up with 4-5 players and locals are suited up to fill out the team.

[psbf]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I feel that some of the irresponsible owners make the league look bad. Instead of blaming Joe, you should be looking at the owners, who pull their teams out in mid-season, without thinking of their fans. I mean it's easy to point fingers. But why not look at the real facts.

[preeths]

If it was simply a problem with ownership, you'd see the same problems in every league. Granted, every league has its issues, but the rest play the vast majority of their scheduled games, while the ABA does not complete even half of its schedule, year in and year out. That clearly points to a problem at the league level, where franchises are awarded. Many of us have looked at the real facts. We've also looked at the burned sponsors, fans, players and employees. This has to stop.

[bdaly]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas. I don't know how anyone can say the league's concept is sound. Upon what do you base that evaluation? Certainly not history. In fact, history shows that giving teams to underfunded owners is disastrous, both for the poor teams and the good ones.
Again, there's a difference between a concept/strategy and its execution. The concept of having 100 teams playing a highly regional schedule that minimizes costs in a sport that has a lot of untapped talent is solid. It can be done well--I have little doubt.

Now, the execution is what I said has been flawed. Allowing owners that don't have the proper startup capital is a clear flaw. If the ABA were to do the appropriate due diligence and make sure everyone has the cash to make it through a season, then I think the concept could bear fruit.

If Doyle and Salley do what they said they will in terms of enforcement, this league could take the next step. If they don't, we'll see weaker regions collapse as teams falter, which boosts travel for other teams, thus causing them to fold too. Again, it's all about the execution of the concept.

[bdaly]

Additionally, FWIW, the ABA boosted its expansion fee to $50,000 this year according to the Rochester D&C. Comparatively, the Razorsharks paid $10,000 last year. I don't know if teams are given breaks or whatnot, but if they really executed on that plan, it should help in screening the especially cash-strapped owners.

[preeths]

Again, there's a difference between a concept/strategy and its execution. The concept of having 100 teams playing a highly regional schedule that minimizes costs in a sport that has a lot of untapped talent is solid. It can be done well--I have little doubt.

Now, the execution is what I said has been flawed. Allowing owners that don't have the proper startup capital is a clear flaw. If the ABA were to do the appropriate due diligence and make sure everyone has the cash to make it through a season, then I think the concept could bear fruit.

If Doyle and Salley do what they said they will in terms of enforcement, this league could take the next step. If they don't, we'll see weaker regions collapse as teams falter, which boosts travel for other teams, thus causing them to fold too. Again, it's all about the execution of the concept.

But that's my point. This concept has never been carried out successfully on a national basis by a minor league. You are one of the few that has little doubt this can be done. Your lack of doubt seems based on faith, not facts, and certainly not history.

The biggest problem when trying to set up a league of 100, or even several dozen, teams is that you allow in too many underfunded operations, setting up a domino effect of failing franchises. The weakest link goes first, weakening everyone else in its region. Veteran minor league employees will tell you that setting up one region of well-financed teams is insanely difficult. A whole nation full is nightmarish. There simply isn't any way to maintain any quality control without a large league staff to help monitor areas like ticket sales, sponsorships, media relations, etc. Let's not even talk about due diligence on 100 owners.

In theory, all sorts of different things work. What we're talking about here is it working in practice, and it hasn't yet. There is nothing about the ABA to suggest this effort will be any better and plenty in its history to suggest what we should expect this season.

[preeths]

Additionally, FWIW, the ABA boosted its expansion fee to $50,000 this year according to the Rochester D&C. Comparatively, the Razorsharks paid $10,000 last year. I don't know if teams are given breaks or whatnot, but if they really executed on that plan, it should help in screening the especially cash-strapped owners.

And the NIFL charges $280,000 per franchise...unless you don't want to pay that much. I have a hard time believing that anyone who pays $50k can't afford to have a logo produced.

[bdaly]

But that's my point. This concept has never been carried out successfully on a national basis by a minor league. You are one of the few that has little doubt this can be done. Your lack of doubt seems based on faith, not facts, and certainly not history.

Indeed. You're the first to say that the league hasn't been run perfectly in the past. That's why I think the concept can work. I don't know of any other leagues that have tried to hit 100 teams. I do know of many successful regional minor leagues though. That's all the ABA should (and I think is) aspire to be. Northeastern teams play a schedule within the NE, Southern teams play a schedule in the south and so on.

However, this very model doesn't require them to allow underfunded operations into the league as you imply--they've done so by choice (or lack of research). That's why I don't believe the concept is flawed. If 100 well-operated teams were admitted, I think this league would be successful. There aren't many other 100 teams leagues to base this off of, so I can't base it off history.

If it were up to me, I'd start in one region, strengthen it, and then expand to another one. I think the fact they are all over the map when the NE seems to be the only strong area is questionable. If you do it region by region, you can appoint people to manage each one as you expand, and you can do the due diligence. But, I'm unlikely to kick off a league anytime soon.

In the end, there's a lot of bias against the ABA, and perhaps deservedly so in some cases. It sounds like some people were burned, and in many cases I'm sure they never had the credentials to run a sports team in the first place. So the ABA has to take the blame for admitting undereducated and underfunded owners. But, again, it comes back to the execution.

Going back to the concept, what don't you think is sound about a minimal travel budget and a regional schedule? I can't think of anything. The only issue has been allowing the wrong people in due to their haste to blanket the map. That has nothing to do with the strategy of placing teams all over the map to minimize travel.

[Pounder]

Torn: should the light of day be shown on Joe Newman's scam, or is that what he wants?

OTOH...

If Buddha suddenly thrust me into the commissioner's role and told me to shape it up or be destroyed, I can't help but think I'd have two basic requirements... (1) fee of $10K, (2) get an arena built and maintain control over it. There might be 50 metal shacks with bleacher seating out there (if enough owners buy into the concept), but the beer sales would do us well.

The key question: how many markets really want minor pro basketball in the first place?

[preeths]

Ah, now we've found a point on which we agree. The ABA would have been far better off establishing itself in one region before moving on to a second. That is, if a stable league was its goal.

I think you're far over-estimating the number of potential qualified ABA owners out there. Many of the most stable regional leagues took years to settle on their markets and ownership. Good ownership is tough to find. It is a difficult process to identify and in some cases cultivate good markets. The ABA is basically stating that it not only can do it, but it can do it in several regions at once, and they can use a minimal staff to make it happen. They cannot.

Going back to the concept, what don't you think is sound about a minimal travel budget and a regional schedule? I can't think of anything. The only issue has been allowing the wrong people in due to their haste to blanket the map. That has nothing to do with the strategy of placing teams all over the map to minimize travel.

It has everything to do with it! Ostensibly, one of the reasons they've placed teams all over the map was to reduce travel costs. For instance, you can't allow in San Francisco one year, and then L.A. the next year, San Diego the next and so on before you complete your California division. San Francisco would be dead from the travel costs by the end of the first year, San Diego the next and so forth. You have to make some compromises in order to set the whole thing up at once. You end up throwing a bunch of teams out there at once, with weak sisters built around the strong teams. That's the ABA we know.

Now, getting back to your initial point, you may not have to make so many compromises if California is your entire focus, but remember you're trying to do the same thing in 5-10 other regions of the country at the same time. Why pursue this impossible strategy? Why not start regional and build region by region? Why not set a cut-off date for allowing in new franchises, to at least give them a chance at success? The answer is found earlier in this thread.

[nksports]

Uncle Joe is beyond embarrassment. He is beyond shame. He is in search of his next mark.

[bdaly]

Why not start regional and build region by region? Why not set a cut-off date for allowing in new franchises, to at least give them a chance at success?
We agree here. I think we both agree that it is possible for this type of concept to succeed. It's just a question of slow v. fast growth. I even think you can find--with time--enough owners to build a strong national footprint. It's not easy and due diligence is necessary. In the end, it would just take ensuring each owner has the appropriate amount of cash in their bank accounts. Clearly, that hasn't been done. Some say it's a fraud; I suspect it's more a case of poor execution. I doubt the ABA has let anyone in without hoping they'd succeed. But, I'm sure they've also known the odds of failure were high, which isn't good. But, if they implement(ed) this correctly, operating costs will be low (in successful regions) allowing those of more modest means to operate a AA/A level team. But, you obviously can't let someone in with only $20K in their bank account.

I'm willing to let this year play out. Some teams were let in late. While I don't think they'll fail as miserably as some of the last second CBA additions given their travel hurdles and higher cost structure, the ultimate end result may be the same. But, I'm going to hope that the new additions to the management team will improve (it won't be perfect) the situation this year, and correct things come next year. I'm not betting the house on it, but the opportunity is there for them.

[preeths]

I believe we have found some common ground. I'm on the other side of the fence, though, in that I simply do not see anything that was done significantly differently this year than last. When you set teams up just a few months before the season starts, they have no time to sell sponsorships, much less tickets. How do teams make it? They don't. It's just that simple. I hate to be pessimistic, but we've seen the same m.o. year in and year out. We really have no reason to expect different results, as nice as that might be.

[bdaly]

When you set teams up just a few months before the season starts, they have no time to sell sponsorships, much less tickets. How do teams make it? They don't. It's just that simple. I hate to be pessimistic, but we've seen the same m.o. year in and year out.
I agree, and that's why I don't believe this season will be without hurdles even if Salley and Doyle are strict. There are a number of ABA and CBA teams that were let in too late to each respective league. Consequently, both leagues are likely to see teams fold or go through ownership changes. It'll still be an eventful year in the ABA, and I expect it to be the same in the CBA (where Vancouver and Atlanta still have skeleton sites). It's just a question of how it's dealt with, or, even better, if a few ABA teams get pushed back to the following season before this year starts if they aren't ready--even if it forces further schedule changes.