Evertt to AF2

[bannerman]

check it out

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/breaking/story/8405335p-8300242c.html

[phydeaux72]

Everett is alreay in the af2.

[preeths]

Of course he meant Tri-Cities.

[rams80]

I have a question for malepig (since he has Kurz's ear and all.) and this is as good a thread as any for it.

Supposing I hypothetically said I had a good letter of credit and financial backing and said that I had ALWAYS wanted to own a football team in Billings, Montana. Would the af2 hook me up?

[Malepig]

If you have 10 million in assets of which 2 million is liquid and can show a good business plan for the proposed team in city you wish to place an af2 team in, give them a call in Chicago.

[rams80]

Any city with an arena? Including one with an existing team in another league?

[phydeaux72]

Any city with an arena? Including one with an existing team in another league?

Sure rams, why not? They did it in Corpus. Ethics hasn't exactly been the af2's strong suit as of late.

[DestroyersFan]

Sure rams, why not? They did it in Corpus. Ethics hasn't exactly been the af2's strong suit as of late.

What exactly is unethical about that? Arena football is a patented product. Why should the people of that city be deprived of a product just because the city is being supplied a knock off version of the product?

I think the debate about which product (arena vs indoor) is better is a great one, but I don’t understand the argument of squatters rights in this industry. If your product is better than the af2, then your product will beat the af2 if they attempt to setup shop in your town. It’s not like af2 owners are as rich as Wal-mart and can afford to setup shop in an indoor football town and operate at a loss until the competition in the area has dried up. If the af2 owners are losing money, they’ve proven that they will fold pretty quick.

[preeths]

In this regard indoor football has been its own worst enemy. Too many of the owners have proven themselves to be underfunded and have left fans, sponsors and arenas in the lurch. These arena managers talk to each other, and part of their job is to minimize risk. Unless stable, secure indoor ownership is in place, you bet they will listen to af2 offers. Setting aside Corpus Christi, Coffey was simply out of money in Fort Wayne, and it looks as if an af2 group will buy the Fever, not force Schillinger out.

If there were more stable ownership groups such as Billings, Wyoming and Daytona Beach and fewer such as Twin City, Palm Beach and Lincoln, indoor football would have a much better rep, and arena managers would have fewer reasons to look for alternatives.

[fwp]

Yep, it was certainly peachy keen in Lincoln with the af2 and their ownership group!

[rams80]

What exactly is unethical about that? Arena football is a patented product. Why should the people of that city be deprived of a product just because the city is being supplied a knock off version of the product?

I think the debate about which product (arena vs indoor) is better is a great one, but I don’t understand the argument of squatters rights in this industry. If your product is better than the af2, then your product will beat the af2 if they attempt to setup shop in your town. It’s not like af2 owners are as rich as Wal-mart and can afford to setup shop in an indoor football town and operate at a loss until the competition in the area has dried up. If the af2 owners are losing money, they’ve proven that they will fold pretty quick.

Let me finish your thought-leaving the market burned for any type of football. The af2 was originally created by the AFL in order to compete with and knock out the other Indoor Leagues that were starting up because the AFL percieved them to be a threat. Removing markets from indoor football is still IMO a major part of the af2's raison d'etre--it doesn't matter if the market survives so long as it isn't in an indoor league. The only other thing that matters to the AFL and af2 is getting the expansion check and franchise fees.

In a way, though, pig's rhetorical statements about the AFL needing the af2 are probably not too far off. I honestly wonder if the AFL would even be as financially "healthy" as it is if it wasn't getting substantial cash infusions from the af2.

As for "squatter's rights" a signed lease should count for something, especially with the better-run leagues like the UIF and Intense League.

Paul, I can't claim to know the motivations for a sale, but I'm willing to bet that Schillinger knew a lost cause when he saw one and decided to make the best deal for himself financially-which is selling out now while you can get something for your team as opposed to being kicked to the curb by SMG when the lease expires next year.

[preeths]

Yep, it was certainly peachy keen in Lincoln with the af2 and their ownership group!

And Cheesman made the decision to leave af2 and go indoor football, and that was the beginning of the end of any legitimate product in Lincoln.

[DestroyersFan]

Let me finish your thought-leaving the market burned for any type of football.

No league that's been around for more than a year (except for the small APFL) hasn't done this. I live an hour from Dayton, and everyone I've talked to said it will be at least 3 to 5 years before it's worth trying indoor football in Dayton again. You can thank the NIFL, and even the UIF, for that.

The af2 was originally created by the AFL in order to compete with and knock out the other Indoor Leagues that were starting up because the AFL percieved them to be a threat. Removing markets from indoor football is still IMO a major part of the af2's raison d'etre--it doesn't matter if the market survives so long as it isn't in an indoor league.

It goes both ways. The indoor leagues want the markets just as much as the af2. Neither is "more holy than thou" in regards to their desire for more market share. Market share is a key component of EVERY business. And unless one entity is rich enough to incorporate predatory tactics (ala Microsoft and Wal-mart) there is certainly nothing unethical about letting the free market determine who does and who doesn't get market share.

The only other thing that matters to the AFL and af2 is getting the expansion check and franchise fees.

And that makes them different from other franchised businesses in what way? Do you think the Subway corporate office has bigger cares than getting their franchise fees and royalties from thousands of store owners? If a store owner isn't making money, the Subway corporate office just lets them close. There's no money to be made in beating a dead horse.

Perhaps you don't like Arena Football for that exact reason, and prefer small leagues that act more like mom and pop shops. Great! A lot of people agree. And the free market will decide where people as a whole prefer corporate franchises to reside and where they prefer mom and pop businesses to reside.


In a way, though, pig's rhetorical statements about the AFL needing the af2 are probably not too far off. I honestly wonder if the AFL would even be as financially "healthy" as it is if it wasn't getting substantial cash infusions from the af2.

I wouldn't put AFL and "financially healthy" in the same sentence. They aren't making money. Never have. But they can claim that some of their players don't play half a season without being paid before their team folds. This is due to the league requiring owners to meet certain financial requirements, and risk bigger loses than they would incur in indoor leagues. Owners in indoor leagues take smaller financial risks, but the players and others who get paid by the team assume a larger risk. It's six of one and half a dozen of another. Pick your poison.


As for "squatter's rights" a signed lease should count for something, especially with the better-run leagues like the UIF and Intense League.

That really depends. An arena owner certainly has the right to back out of a signed lease if it's obvious the team owner can't financially meet their end of the lease for the whole season. I've seen cases where an arena refused to re-sign a lease to an indoor team that looked financially OK (and I use "OK" loosely), but of all the signed agreements that have been backed out of, the team couldn't be possibly considered financially OK.


Paul, I can't claim to know the motivations for a sale, but I'm willing to bet that Schillinger knew a lost cause when he saw one and decided to make the best deal for himself financially-which is selling out now while you can get something for your team as opposed to being kicked to the curb by SMG when the lease expires next year.

Great point!

[fwp]

And Cheesman made the decision to leave af2 and go indoor football, and that was the beginning of the end of any legitimate product in Lincoln.


C'mon Paul, you know that isn't true in the least.

Fortunately, Bruce Bailey honored all the season tickets sold and the sponsorships that were paid to the af2 team. Whether he was a good owner or not is totally seperate, but I have no doubt that he was disillusioned after the initial goodwill outlay and finding that many were not interested in continuation of what they went through with the af2 team.

Cheeseman was not part of indoor football in Lincoln after the af2 season.

[sportsguy12]

The af2 was created as a feeder system for players and coaches to move up to the AFL. Baseball has it, hockey has it, so what's wrong with the AFL doing it.

Af2 was also created to spark interest in arena football in smaller communities like the Katy's, Green Bay's and Lousville's that aren't a good fit for the AFL.

It wasn't created to knock out other leagues because the other leagues don't put the same product on the field. Arena ball is arena ball ... not indoor football. The rules, etc. are different in other leagues.

[preeths]

C'mon Paul, you know that isn't true in the least.

Fortunately, Bruce Bailey honored all the season tickets sold and the sponsorships that were paid to the af2 team. Whether he was a good owner or not is totally seperate, but I have no doubt that he was disillusioned after the initial goodwill outlay and finding that many were not interested in continuation of what they went through with the af2 team.

Cheeseman was not part of indoor football in Lincoln after the af2 season.

I know it is true because I talked to Cheesman just before he pulled the Lightning from af2. His plan was to slip into the background of the new indoor team because his af2 contracts had a no-compete clause and he couldn't be the outright owner. Not sure if he was ever involved with the Caps, but those were his intentions.

[fwp]

I know it is true because I talked to Cheesman just before he pulled the Lightning from af2. His plan was to slip into the background of the new indoor team because his af2 contracts had a no-compete clause and he couldn't be the outright owner. Not sure if he was ever involved with the Caps, but those were his intentions.

Nope.......he went into mowing lawns. Haven't seen him for sometime.

We had our af2 schedule, they folded up weeks before the season.

[preeths]

I know, I talked with Cheesman on the phone, one-to-one (not through email), just a few days before he pulled the plug on the Lightning. The af2 schedule was out, but he was not going to play the games. af2 searched for alternative ownership, but with so little time, they came up empty and the Lightning were done. You can blame af2 all you want, but Cheesman pulled the plug at that time, and he told me he was going to do it. That's fact.

Now for speculation. He didn't mention it, but I suspect the problems Cheesman was having with his main business really left him little choice. He knew there was no way he would be able to fund the Lightning through the season, and he hoped to remain involved in the game. Circumstances may have prevented that from happening.

[Malepig]

The af2 was created as a feeder system for players and coaches to move up to the AFL. Baseball has it, hockey has it, so what's wrong with the AFL doing it.

Af2 was also created to spark interest in arena football in smaller communities like the Katy's, Green Bay's and Lousville's that aren't a good fit for the AFL.

It wasn't created to knock out other leagues because the other leagues don't put the same product on the field. Arena ball is arena ball ... not indoor football. The rules, etc. are different in other leagues.

And to make money as well. The design is for 6,000-12,000 seat arenas in the af2.

[Malepig]

What exactly is unethical about that? Arena football is a patented product. Why should the people of that city be deprived of a product just because the city is being supplied a knock off version of the product?

I think the debate about which product (arena vs indoor) is better is a great one, but I don’t understand the argument of squatters rights in this industry. If your product is better than the af2, then your product will beat the af2 if they attempt to setup shop in your town. It’s not like af2 owners are as rich as Wal-mart and can afford to setup shop in an indoor football town and operate at a loss until the competition in the area has dried up. If the af2 owners are losing money, they’ve proven that they will fold pretty quick.

100% correct! Nothing unethical with the af2 in C.C. espcialy with the hammerheads moving out of that arena.

[phydeaux72]

100% correct! Nothing unethical with the af2 in C.C. espcialy with the hammerheads moving out of that arena.

The Hammerheads weren't moving out of the ABC and had no intentions to. The lease was signed and in SMG's hands at the same time that the af2 was slithering in to pull the rug out from under them. The ABC (or SMG, depending on how you look at it) didn't counter-sign the lease, after they had already agreed to do so. Then proceeded to formulate bogus excuses for not renewing the lease, make it out to look like the Hammerheads didn't own up to their end of the lease the prior year. Simply not the case.

Deny it all you want Malepig, but that's how it happened. And no matter how you look at it, it was unethical and underhanded on both the part of SMG and the af2.

[preeths]

SMG has never provided a reason they terminated the lease.

[Malepig]

The Hammerheads weren't moving out of the ABC and had no intentions to. The lease was signed and in SMG's hands at the same time that the af2 was slithering in to pull the rug out from under them. The ABC (or SMG, depending on how you look at it) didn't counter-sign the lease, after they had already agreed to do so. Then proceeded to formulate bogus excuses for not renewing the lease, make it out to look like the Hammerheads didn't own up to their end of the lease the prior year. Simply not the case.

Deny it all you want Malepig, but that's how it happened. And no matter how you look at it, it was unethical and underhanded on both the part of SMG and the af2.

I know nothing about the situation except that SMG decided not to renew. If the Corpus Christie ownership group went in and took the building away for themseleves isn't that a good business move? The af2 did not negotiate the lease with C.C., it was the ownership group and maybe Michael Dell just hates to lose and be told no. That is not unethical. If you believe it is, then putting a team in Katy is just as unethical.

[tony-o]

I'm going to have to agree with DestroyersFan and Malepig here. There is nothing unethical about what the af2 is doing, it's just business. However, people will continue to try to make a mountain out of a molehill here.

[Malepig]

SMG has never provided a reason they terminated the lease.

They don't have to. They chose not to renew.

[preeths]

Legally, no, I don't believe they do, but lots of things are legal that aren't necessarily ethical or moral. SMG could remove all doubts by being more transparent and providing a reason they didn't want to deal with a local business.

[sportsguy12]

And to make money as well. The design is for 6,000-12,000 seat arenas in the af2.

Correct, while teams do want to achieve certain financial goals, the af2 does not just throw a team in the market to force someone out. The ownership group (after one is formed) has to meet certain criteria.

[rams80]

No league that's been around for more than a year (except for the small APFL) hasn't done this. I live an hour from Dayton, and everyone I've talked to said it will be at least 3 to 5 years before it's worth trying indoor football in Dayton again. You can thank the NIFL, and even the UIF, for that.

The problem here is that the af2 comes in hailed as the "Messiah" league when it's franchise kill record over history isn't exactly flattering. The problem with the af2 is honestly its financial model really works only for the markets you'd say stick AAA baseball teams or higher. How many of those markets that they expanded to this year fit that requirement?

It goes both ways. The indoor leagues want the markets just as much as the af2. Neither is "more holy than thou" in regards to their desire for more market share. Market share is a key component of EVERY business. And unless one entity is rich enough to incorporate predatory tactics (ala Microsoft and Wal-mart) there is certainly nothing unethical about letting the free market determine who does and who doesn't get market share.

Show me one instance of an indoor league harpooning a legitimate lease, and I will conceed the point.

And that makes them different from other franchised businesses in what way? Do you think the Subway corporate office has bigger cares than getting their franchise fees and royalties from thousands of store owners? If a store owner isn't making money, the Subway corporate office just lets them close. There's no money to be made in beating a dead horse.

Perhaps you don't like Arena Football for that exact reason, and prefer small leagues that act more like mom and pop shops. Great! A lot of people agree. And the free market will decide where people as a whole prefer corporate franchises to reside and where they prefer mom and pop businesses to reside.

My original point was yet another swing at the contention that the af2 "cares" about its fans. I don't disagree with you in any one bit about most franchise based corporations to be based entirely on the franchise fees.

I wouldn't put AFL and "financially healthy" in the same sentence. They aren't making money. Never have. But they can claim that some of their players don't play half a season without being paid before their team folds. This is due to the league requiring owners to meet certain financial requirements, and risk bigger loses than they would incur in indoor leagues. Owners in indoor leagues take smaller financial risks, but the players and others who get paid by the team assume a larger risk. It's six of one and half a dozen of another. Pick your poison.

I'd like to point out I put "healthy" in quotes last time. I meant without the af2's revenue, the past offseason for the AFL would have most likely seen another massive round of franchise bloodletting.

I don't think a UIF or Intense League team missed payroll this year. Peoria would probably have been the most likely candidate and if that had happened their beat writer would have been writing about it on the front page of the paper in 48 font.

That really depends. An arena owner certainly has the right to back out of a signed lease if it's obvious the team owner can't financially meet their end of the lease for the whole season. I've seen cases where an arena refused to re-sign a lease to an indoor team that looked financially OK (and I use "OK" loosely), but of all the signed agreements that have been backed out of, the team couldn't be possibly considered financially OK.

Explain Corpus Christi

[phydeaux72]

This article ring a bell?

http://www.enlaredo.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17262070&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=473477&rfi=6

"In Corpus Christi the IFL’s Hammerheads lease at the American Bank Center wasn’t renewed, citing license agreement violations by the team. A move that IFL president and team owner Chad Dittman claims is a power move in order to make way for an af2 team."

[rams80]

Correct, while teams do want to achieve certain financial goals, the af2 does not just throw a team in the market to force someone out. The ownership group (after one is formed) has to meet certain criteria.

Sooo... (this is also in regards to pig's point about arena size)

What was the average attendance for af2 teams last year?

What was the average attendance for those new af2 markets that had teams last year?

[phydeaux72]

If you believe it is, then putting a team in Katy is just as unethical.

How is it unethical? The Copperheads left Katy alltogether. They went to a totally separate community. Had the Copperheads stayed in Katy, the IFL wouldn't have even considered approaching the Merrell Center.

[Malepig]

This article ring a bell?

http://www.enlaredo.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17262070&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=473477&rfi=6

"In Corpus Christi the IFL’s Hammerheads lease at the American Bank Center wasn’t renewed, citing license agreement violations by the team.

So a reason was given afterall. SMG did thier part.

[rams80]

I believe the quiz bowl term I'd ask SMG is "Could you be more specific?"

[Malepig]

How is it unethical? The Copperheads left Katy alltogether. They went to a totally separate community. Had the Copperheads stayed in Katy, the IFL wouldn't have even considered approaching the Merrell Center.

If you feel the Corpus Christie af2 team did something unethical by putting a team in the vincity of the hammerheads then the same could be said about the IFL Katy team putting a team in the vincity of the Texas Copperheads. I feel neither is unethical but they do go hand in hand.

[preeths]

Setting aside the question of ethics for the time, I'd have to disagree about these being equivalent situations. The Copperheads willingly left the Katy arena vacant when they moved. A new team then moved into Katy. No harm, no potential foul.

The Hammerheads did not leave ABC willingly. SMG has given the appearance the IFL team was forced to leave to make room for an af2 team. The so-called "license agreement violations" is a blanket term which tells nothing of their rationale.

Again, not saying they did anything wrong, but these situations are not the same.

[Malepig]

That's fine, to me they are the same thing. Just business.

[DestroyersFan]

The problem here is that the af2 comes in hailed as the "Messiah" league when it's franchise kill record over history isn't exactly flattering.

The NIFL's is worse. And the NIFL is the only other indoor league with enough completed seasons to have "a history" (maybe the APFL). These younger leagues aren't going to be immune to the "kill record" after they've been around for 6-7 years and more. A high percentage of folding comes with the territory of starting new businesses in low level sports industry. The majority of new businesses in any industry don't last more than three years.


The problem with the af2 is honestly its financial model really works only for the markets you'd say stick AAA baseball teams or higher. How many of those markets that they expanded to this year fit that requirement?

I don't agree. Look at Arkansas. Look at Quad City. Look at Bossier-Shreveport. These aren't AAA cities and they've been in the af2 as long as Tulsa and Louisville.

I'm not saying that all the expansion teams will survive. I think they're all taking the same risk any new business takes... the chance that they'll fail.

Show me one instance of an indoor league harpooning a legitimate lease, and I will conceed the point.

Show me where the af2 did it. SMG was not a signed lease. It was up for renewal. SMG decided not to renew it. If the only reason was that SMG prefers af2, how is that unethical of the af2? US Bank arena did the same thing to the NIFL Marshals. If arena managers prefer af2 teams as customers that's part of the free market process.

My original point was yet another swing at the contention that the af2 "cares" about its fans. I don't disagree with you in any one bit about most franchise based corporations to be based entirely on the franchise fees.

A lot of companies make claims about caring about the customer, or putting the customer first, or some other BS that sounds good to a potential customer. But lets not kid ourselves and believe that any one of them puts making a profit below their customers. None of them do.

I'd like to point out I put "healthy" in quotes last time. I meant without the af2's revenue, the past offseason for the AFL would have most likely seen another massive round of franchise bloodletting.

I don't see how. With more than half the teams with losses in the millions, a few $300,000 franchise fees isn't going make a dent in the overall loss.

I don't think a UIF or Intense League team missed payroll this year. Peoria would probably have been the most likely candidate and if that had happened their beat writer would have been writing about it on the front page of the paper in 48 font.

Give 'em time. They haven't been around very long.


Explain Corpus Christi

See above.

[rams80]

The NIFL's is worse. And the NIFL is the only other indoor league with enough completed seasons to have "a history" (maybe the APFL). These younger leagues aren't going to be immune to the "kill record" after they've been around for 6-7 years and more. A high percentage of folding comes with the territory of starting new businesses in low level sports industry. The majority of new businesses in any industry don't last more than three years.


I've never once praised the niffle. However, that dog don't hunt when it comes to the UIF-most of the franchises in that league have histories that go back as long as any team in the af2 (and OV pre-dates the af2).

I don't agree. Look at Arkansas. Look at Quad City. Look at Bossier-Shreveport. These aren't AAA cities and they've been in the af2 as long as Tulsa and Louisville.

If Little Rock had had a modern ballpark they might have had a AAA team still; Quad City's continued survival has been a function of Jim Foster being a member of the ownership group until this year. BC/S's continued survival baffles me at this point and only indicates how deep it's owners pockets are.


Show me where the af2 did it. SMG was not a signed lease. It was up for renewal. SMG decided not to renew it. If the only reason was that SMG prefers af2, how is that unethical of the af2? US Bank arena did the same thing to the NIFL Marshals. If arena managers prefer af2 teams as customers that's part of the free market process.

I'll put it to you this way. The Hammerhead organization is probably one of the 5 best in Indoor Football. They gave the arena no cause to kill the lease except for playing in what Jerry Kurz has called a "Renegade League". You know the real funny thing about this (and another reason why the deal stinks like week-old fish). A couple of years back Dittman approached the af2 about having a team in Corpus and was rejected because the market was "too small".

Cincy-well I can't defend the Niffle at this point (although I maintain that giving Sam Adams a second team before he's proven he can run one without league help is borderline insane.)

I'll also ask your opinion about how far "preference" goes. According to the Sioux Falls Storm fans, SMG tried to force the Storm out this offseason. Bear in mind that the Storm is arguably the best run organization at any level of indoor football.

I don't see how. With more than half the teams with losses in the millions, a few $300,000 franchise fees isn't going make a dent in the overall loss.

It might be enough to keep the owners on board, although I think next year is going to be huge when it comes to deciding the AFL's future.

[Malepig]

Two things to correct. 1) It wasn't the city it was the financials previously with Corpus Christie. 2) QC's continued survival had nothing to do with Jim Foster.

SMG is huge. They are in Mexico, Asia, Europe, as well as the US. If they choose the af2 or over indoor leagues its because they know enough to see who works out better. SMG has a management responisbility to the arenas and other venues so they know what brings in the crowd as well as revenue.

[DestroyersFan]

I've never once praised the niffle. However, that dog don't hunt when it comes to the UIF-most of the franchises in that league have histories that go back as long as any team in the af2 (and OV pre-dates the af2).

So you give the league credit for years of success that occured before the league existed? I'm sorry, but if you're going to accuse a league of having a high percentage of killing cities for indoor football, then present the benchmark that you are making the comparison against. What is an acceptable percentage of killings? 0%? 10%? 25% 50%? Remember, the benchmark you set is what your favorite league, that only has two years of existence, will also be held to.

Just because a league adpoted teams with long histories doesn't make them immune to the risk of teams folding. Peoria had a long history before it joined the UIF. Heck, before they joined the UIF they had won 3 championships, including the af2's Arena Cup, and almost won a 2nd Arena Cup. One could even say their decision to join the UIF killed one of indoor footballs most successful teams. Then you've got Fort Wayne, which was setting attendence records while a part of the NIFL, dead in the water after two years in the UIF.

Fact is, the death rate the af2 has experienced will not be any different than the death rate of all these younger leagues after they've had a history as long as the af2. Adopting teams with prior histories may mask that fact in the short term, but in the long term all leagues will experience high death rates. It can't be avoided. It's part of being in the low level sports industry.

If Little Rock had had a modern ballpark they might have had a AAA team still; Quad City's continued survival has been a function of Jim Foster being a member of the ownership group until this year. BC/S's continued survival baffles me at this point and only indicates how deep it's owners pockets are.

So you acknowledge that strong ownership groups can make small city markets work in the af2?


I'll put it to you this way. The Hammerhead organization is probably one of the 5 best in Indoor Football. They gave the arena no cause to kill the lease except for playing in what Jerry Kurz has called a "Renegade League".

So what! If there was some mom & pop fried chicken place that had been operating at a leased building for 10 years, and their lease was up for renewal, and the owner of the building prefers Kentucky Fried Chicken, it doesn't matter how good the mom & pop organization is. The owner of the building is a consumer. If he prefers to have Kentucky Fried Chicken lease his building, that's his choice. It's his building. He doesn't need to give an explanation. He just exercises HIS OPTION to not renew the lease.

You know the real funny thing about this (and another reason why the deal stinks like week-old fish). A couple of years back Dittman approached the af2 about having a team in Corpus and was rejected because the market was "too small".

A couple years back the af2 experienced a lot of teams fold and leave for leagues with "cheaper" fees. The league did a lot of reorganization. Now they have a better grasp of what can work and what can't work. It doesn't seem odd to me at all that a couple years ago they didn't think it can work, but now they think it can.

Cincy-well I can't defend the Niffle at this point (although I maintain that giving Sam Adams a second team before he's proven he can run one without league help is borderline insane.)

At this point, I'm not sure the problems of Everett were caused by Sam or by the people he hired. Either way he's got responsibility for the problems, but if Sam wasn't the problem I can see why the af2 wouldn't be worried about him owning another team. He should have no problem hiring good people in Cincy.

I'll also ask your opinion about how far "preference" goes. According to the Sioux Falls Storm fans, SMG tried to force the Storm out this offseason. Bear in mind that the Storm is arguably the best run organization at any level of indoor football.

That's pretty much the exact point I'm getting at. Not only can the fans show a preference for one type of indoor football over another (maybe that happened in Peoria... but there's still a good argument that fans don't care one way or the other for either), but city officials, arena managers, and the powers that be that can make or break a team in a city, can show a preference for one type of indoor football over another. While the jury is still out on what fans prefer, recently there's a heavy leaning by these arena managers and city officials for arena football in lieu of indoor football. If that's what the powers that be want, that's what they'll get. The af2 is doing nothing unethical by providing it when the powers that be want it.

It might be enough to keep the owners on board, although I think next year is going to be huge when it comes to deciding the AFL's future.

I think every year will be for quite a while. Not only for the AFL, but for every indoor league.

[fwp]

The arena league has used its influence to pressure SMG to push out quality indoor teams for af2. This does not mean that arena managers or city officials prefer or want arena ball. SMG manages many facilities across the country.

Unfortunately, this is a sport that city officials don't really care one way or the other.

[DestroyersFan]

The arena league has used its influence to pressure SMG to push out quality indoor teams for af2. This does not mean that arena managers or city officials prefer or want arena ball. SMG manages many facilities across the country.

Unfortunately, this is a sport that city officials don't really care one way or the other.

Please explain what you mean by "has used its influence to pressure SMG".

If you mean the AFL sells SMG on the Arena Football product because it's a nationally broadcasted sport, of course they do. Arena Football is a patented product (for at least another few years). The AFL is going to sell their product as much as they can. If you call that "pressure", so be it. Sales is an art of applying the right pressure to the right point. If you've got an angle you can use, you'll use it to make a sale. Arena Football with their national product (AFL) has a great angle to sell af2.

And city officials do care. When crooks like HP Patterson rip of local businesses, and when local chambers of commerce speak out against indoor football leagues, city officials are taking notice of whats going on. Many indoor teams have to pay the entire season of their arena rent up front because so many arenas accross the country never got paid by indoor football teams that folded mid season. These arenas also know an af2 team has never done this. Again, it's another angle. A selling point as to why an arena should prefer the af2. Fans don't care. But arenas are really starting to form an opinion.

[rams80]

So you give the league credit for years of success that occured before the league existed? I'm sorry, but if you're going to accuse a league of having a high percentage of killing cities for indoor football, then present the benchmark that you are making the comparison against. What is an acceptable percentage of killings? 0%? 10%? 25% 50%? Remember, the benchmark you set is what your favorite league, that only has two years of existence, will also be held to.

The age and longevity of the organizations in the UIF are arguments that this league does know a thing or two about how run a football league. (That and the fact they had the presence of mind to get out of the NIFL before things REALLY went to pot.)

Just because a league adpoted teams with long histories doesn't make them immune to the risk of teams folding. Peoria had a long history before it joined the UIF. Heck, before they joined the UIF they had won 3 championships, including the af2's Arena Cup, and almost won a 2nd Arena Cup. One could even say their decision to join the UIF killed one of indoor footballs most successful teams. Then you've got Fort Wayne, which was setting attendence records while a part of the NIFL, dead in the water after two years in the UIF.

Peoria would not have had football the last two years if they had not jumped to the UIF. Pat Ward has said as much in the past (and given the af2's financial structure I believe him.)

Fort Wayne might still be in the UIF if 1) Rich Coffey didn't lie to the faces of his fellow owners about what his intentions were for next season, and 2) Jeremy Golden didn't lie to the arena about the af2 having a tv deal.

So you acknowledge that strong ownership groups can make small city markets work in the af2?[/Quotes]

If they're willing to hemorrage money, yes.


[Quote]So what! If there was some mom & pop fried chicken place that had been operating at a leased building for 10 years, and their lease was up for renewal, and the owner of the building prefers Kentucky Fried Chicken, it doesn't matter how good the mom & pop organization is. The owner of the building is a consumer. If he prefers to have Kentucky Fried Chicken lease his building, that's his choice. It's his building. He doesn't need to give an explanation. He just exercises HIS OPTION to not renew the lease.

Fine, just tell the patrons of the mom and pop place that.

A couple years back the af2 experienced a lot of teams fold and leave for leagues with "cheaper" fees. The league did a lot of reorganization. Now they have a better grasp of what can work and what can't work. It doesn't seem odd to me at all that a couple years ago they didn't think it can work, but now they think it can.

My point about Corpus was they didn't expand down there EVEN WHEN they were going nuts on expansion. What has changed in the market since then that would now make Corpus seem viable to them, besides the presence of one of the flagship franchises of a rival league.

At this point, I'm not sure the problems of Everett were caused by Sam or by the people he hired. Either way he's got responsibility for the problems, but if Sam wasn't the problem I can see why the af2 wouldn't be worried about him owning another team. He should have no problem hiring good people in Cincy.

I'm of a "why invite trouble" philosophy-especially when I'm already propping up a couple of franchises with league funds. Give Adams a year to prove he has learned his lesson in Everett, and then let him own a team in Cincy-the market's not going anywhere.

That's pretty much the exact point I'm getting at. Not only can the fans show a preference for one type of indoor football over another (maybe that happened in Peoria... but there's still a good argument that fans don't care one way or the other for either), but city officials, arena managers, and the powers that be that can make or break a team in a city, can show a preference for one type of indoor football over another. While the jury is still out on what fans prefer, recently there's a heavy leaning by these arena managers and city officials for arena football in lieu of indoor football. If that's what the powers that be want, that's what they'll get. The af2 is doing nothing unethical by providing it when the powers that be want it.

But why would the powers that be want to trade a very stable organization in a league that seems to know what its doing with knowledgable fan support and local ownership for an expansion team in another league, most likely owned by out of town figures, that is going to face significant financial hurdles based on higher league costs and much higher travel costs? This really doesn't make rational sense from where I'm looking at.

As for Peoria, the team was poorly marketed, and they never were able to properly explain to the general public why they had to abandon the Pirates moniker. What press and marketing they did get came from the beat writer who had a pretty obvious vendetta against the organization.

Personally, I also think Peorians didn't reject the style of play so much as the team's quality of play.

[DestroyersFan]

The age and longevity of the organizations in the UIF are arguments that this league does know a thing or two about how run a football league. (That and the fact they had the presence of mind to get out of the NIFL before things REALLY went to pot.)

And again, knowing a thing or two about how to run a football league will not be enough to keep teams from folding. You could be a flippin' genius with doctorates in business and sports management and you'd still experience teams folding in your league. It's part of being in the low level sports industry. I get so tired of fans of 2 year old leagues pointing out how many teams the older leagues have experienced folding as if their league is so good that they're immune to that ever happening. Five years from now, these new indoor leagues will have experienced a similiar percentage of foldings as the af2 has.


Peoria would not have had football the last two years if they had not jumped to the UIF. Pat Ward has said as much in the past (and given the af2's financial structure I believe him.)

I can't find the link, but someone of some importance said after the announcement that the Rough Riders were folding that if Peoria does indoor football again they would only do af2.


Fort Wayne might still be in the UIF if 1) Rich Coffey didn't lie to the faces of his fellow owners about what his intentions were for next season, and 2) Jeremy Golden didn't lie to the arena about the af2 having a tv deal.

Fort Wayne wouldn't have indoor football at all in 2007 if there wasn't a buyer to dig Coffey out of his hole. There's no reason the UIF, who you state "know a thing or two about football" couldn't have found a solution to Coffey's problems like the af2 did.


My point about Corpus was they didn't expand down there EVEN WHEN they were going nuts on expansion. What has changed in the market since then that would now make Corpus seem viable to them, besides the presence of one of the flagship franchises of a rival league.

Five other Texas af2 teams.


But why would the powers that be want to trade a very stable organization in a league that seems to know what its doing with knowledgable fan support and local ownership for an expansion team in another league, most likely owned by out of town figures, that is going to face significant financial hurdles based on higher league costs and much higher travel costs? This really doesn't make rational sense from where I'm looking at.

Because "very stable organization" and "league that seems to know what its doing" are YOUR opinion of the team and league. Arena managers likely have a different opinion of the same team and league. They've worked directly with the team and league. I think they're entitled to their opinion.

As for Peoria, the team was poorly marketed, and they never were able to properly explain to the general public why they had to abandon the Pirates moniker. What press and marketing they did get came from the beat writer who had a pretty obvious vendetta against the organization.

Perhaps the league, which you stated "knows a thing or two about football" should have done something before it was too late.

Personally, I also think Peorians didn't reject the style of play so much as the team's quality of play.

There may be a fine line between the two.

[sportsguy12]

The big reason why CC was rejected years ago is because they had an older arena. Now that they have a new arena, they were welcomed with open arms. Perhaps the NIFL missed the boat in playing in another horse barn AKA the old arena.

[rams80]

And again, knowing a thing or two about how to run a football league will not be enough to keep teams from folding. You could be a flippin' genius with doctorates in business and sports management and you'd still experience teams folding in your league. It's part of being in the low level sports industry. I get so tired of fans of 2 year old leagues pointing out how many teams the older leagues have experienced folding as if their league is so good that they're immune to that ever happening. Five years from now, these new indoor leagues will have experienced a similiar percentage of foldings as the af2 has.

IDK, the af2's 100%'s gonna be hard to match.

I can't find the link, but someone of some importance said after the announcement that the Rough Riders were folding that if Peoria does indoor football again they would only do af2.

May I point out that SMG conveniently runs the Peoria Civic Center. Their intransigence on that issue is why Peoria can't have any other league, even though Peoria is not big enough to support an af2 team. The only likely owner also said he would only have a team if his hockey team's attendance reached numbers that it hasn't had since the IHL. (Pretty indicative of the whacked out financial structure of the af2 if I say so myself). So in other words, Peoria may never have indoor football again, when A COMPETENTLY MARKETED TEAM GETTING A FRESH START IN A CHEAPER LEAGUE THAN THE af2 (say the UIF or CIFL) WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE!



Fort Wayne wouldn't have indoor football at all in 2007 if there wasn't a buyer to dig Coffey out of his hole. There's no reason the UIF, who you state "know a thing or two about football" couldn't have found a solution to Coffey's problems like the af2 did.

UIF had an ownership group available (granted its one they scraped up at the last minute, but they had one, and it was local.) Anyway, what are you to do if said owner lies to you or does not tell you he needs help? The af2's solution was to find an out of state owner who has past ties (no matter how short) to both the NIFL and CSM, who was the backer for their failed reality show, and who lied about certain things in the presentation (league-wide tv deal for one.)

Five other Texas af2 teams.

Only two last season...and there were five in the Intense League last season.

Because "very stable organization" and "league that seems to know what its doing" are YOUR opinion of the team and league. Arena managers likely have a different opinion of the same team and league. They've worked directly with the team and league. I think they're entitled to their opinion.


Reallly reaching here-anyone who's at all knowledgable about Indoor Football would say that the Sioux Falls Storm are a model organization. If they have a different opinion, they must have been educated in Illinois, because that would be the only way possible to explain their irrational stupidity.

Perhaps the league, which you stated "knows a thing or two about football" should have done something before it was too late.

Maybe, although IMO the damage was already done during the af2 years (specifically those 3 years when OPE ran the team.)

[Malepig]

The arena league has used its influence to pressure SMG to push out quality indoor teams for af2. This does not mean that arena managers or city officials prefer or want arena ball. SMG manages many facilities across the country.

Unfortunately, this is a sport that city officials don't really care one way or the other.

That just isn't true. Has SMG decided not to renews leases? Yes. Does the af2 have that kind of power, the answer is no. BUt maybe you should be asking why SMG wants to work with the af2 over the other indoor leagues. SMG must feel the af2 has a better reputation and more professional of a showing so they must believe the af2 is the best. If the other leagues would step up then maybe SMG would not be asking the af2 as much.

[bannerman]

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/breaking/story/8411447p-8306334c.html

[Sykotyk]

Because the AF2 won't let a team fold midseason, even if it means the league runs it. Which means all home games result in the venue getting paid.

It has nothing to do with which team may last longer, make more or less money, or have a bigger national name, or anything else you can use to try to describe the differences between how well or bad any team will do.

It boils down to that one fact, which is why most other league, regardless of which league, are put in the NIFL lot, the sorry, half-baked, excuse of an indoor league carrying the banner for the sport. And usually result in asking now for the lease to be paid in advance, rather than on a set payment schedule throughout the season.

Sykotyk

[Malepig]

It is important to have a league that will finish the schedule and the venue get paid. It does help to have a working relationship with SMG since they run so many arenas. SMG has worked with many leagues and if they prefer the af2 so be it. Its obviously the best business move.

[nksports]

The only SMG building in this area is the Topeka Expocentre, which hosts the Kansas Koyotes (APFL).
I think SMG stands for "Show me the Money - G."

[UNLogger]

Reallly reaching here-anyone who's at all knowledgable about Indoor Football would say that the Sioux Falls Storm are a model organization. If they have a different opinion, they must have been educated in Illinois, because that would be the only way possible to explain their irrational stupidity.

You know I have been enjoying this back and forth conversation between you and Destroyers Fan. I don't post a lot on these boards, but I do read them daily and enjoy the conversation and information I find. However, I was born in Illinois. Both my parents graduated from the University of Illinois and most of my family calls Illinois home. I sincerely hope that you aren't ruining any chance at keeping your credibility by calling all people from Illinois irrationally stupid.

Personally in this discussion I have agreed with DestroyersFan, however, I felt you were making a compelling argument, even if I didn't agree with most of it. Then you make that kind of generalization and it tends to ruin the credibility you had built up. Once its gone, its hard to get back.

I am sure you don't care much about my opinion, but the point of this post is valid regardless of the area in life in which the discussion is going on.

UNLogger

[rams80]

You know I have been enjoying this back and forth conversation between you and Destroyers Fan. I don't post a lot on these boards, but I do read them daily and enjoy the conversation and information I find. However, I was born in Illinois. Both my parents graduated from the University of Illinois and most of my family calls Illinois home. I sincerely hope that you aren't ruining any chance at keeping your credibility by calling all people from Illinois irrationally stupid.

Personally in this discussion I have agreed with DestroyersFan, however, I felt you were making a compelling argument, even if I didn't agree with most of it. Then you make that kind of generalization and it tends to ruin the credibility you had built up. Once its gone, its hard to get back.

I am sure you don't care much about my opinion, but the point of this post is valid regardless of the area in life in which the discussion is going on.

UNLogger

Sorry, (I'm actually from Illinois as well.) It's just that after the events of last Tuesday, where Illinois actually re-elected their corrupt lying weasel governor, I've found myself having a lower opinion on the general intelligence of my fellow Illinoisans.

Personally, I feel that the University of Illinois is a fine institution, and that my original post was more of a shot at the underfunded state of the public school system, which is likely to increase over the next 4 years.

(Gets off political stump)