Sacramento Mountain Lions team owner Pelosi promises back pay for coaches

The United Football League (UFL) forum
User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:31 pm

[quote=""4th&long""]Exactly

Agreed, it was not easy, but when accomplished it was extremely successful. A league is just that, a collection of teams. It requires everyone to be working in the same direction. Not easy but very doable.

Btw on a side note, buffalo would not be in the nfl today if not for the AfL. It's a poor city with declining attendance while a city like Portland is much bigger and more affluent. There are cities that a new league could exploit, just like the AFl of the 60’s[/quote]

Also remember, the AFL wasn't successful until later. That league struggled mightily and dropped tons of money the first few years. It lost one of its original ownership groups to the NFL. It lost the battle of Dallas to the NFL's Cowboys. They drew flies in the country's two biggest markets of New York and Los Angeles and abandoned the latter. It had stadium problems in Boston, and Oakland was saved by another league owner. And it was just an eight-team league! The ability of the AFL to keep its owners on relatively the same page has proven to be a rarity. Sure, it's "doable" as in possible, but it is extremely difficult. You need successful people to finance these operations, and successful people are notoriously hard to shepherd.

It was a different world in the 1960s with the NFL in far fewer markets and with the importance of television just beginning to be tapped. Today the NFL is a juggernaut, and despite the number of TV channels, its a buyer's market for TV contracts.

4th&long
Site Admin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:56 pm

Post by 4th&long » Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:08 pm

[quote=""preeths""]Also remember, the AFL wasn't successful until later. That league struggled mightily and dropped tons of money the first few years. It lost one of its original ownership groups to the NFL. It lost the battle of Dallas to the NFL's Cowboys. They drew flies in the country's two biggest markets of New York and Los Angeles and abandoned the latter. It had stadium problems in Boston, and Oakland was saved by another league owner. And it was just an eight-team league! The ability of the AFL to keep its owners on relatively the same page has proven to be a rarity. Sure, it's "doable" as in possible, but it is extremely difficult. You need successful people to finance these operations, and successful people are notoriously hard to shepherd.

It was a different world in the 1960s with the NFL in far fewer markets and with the importance of television just beginning to be tapped. Today the NFL is a juggernaut, and despite the number of TV channels, its a buyer's market for TV contracts.[/quote]

All good info, but the point remains it WAS successful and FB was just starting to be a big thing.

I will say that the nfl has tried to get all networks in the game, that may be a bigger issue than anything else. If one of the big 4 didn't have football it would be a bigger opening.

User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:14 am

The AFL was eventually successful because it forced a merger with the NFL. Do you see that as a possibility for a new league? The AFL was able to bleed financially for a few years. A new league would hemorrhage cash.

4th&long
Site Admin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:56 pm

Post by 4th&long » Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:11 pm

[quote=""preeths""]The AFL was eventually successful because it forced a merger with the NFL. Do you see that as a possibility for a new league? The AFL was able to bleed financially for a few years. A new league would hemorrhage cash.[/quote]

That' some way to look at it. Al Davis thought the AFL would have been the stronger and NFL merge with it.

The AFL was successful because it was able to get national attention. It wasn't going under if a merger didn't happen. Both leagues wanted a merger to control player costs and avoid bidding wars.

A minor or lessor league goal would be different in a far different market. Instead of forcing a merger it may be to be acknowledged as the defacto minor league and require payments for players moving up. Or games on NFL network or some other working arrangement.

4th

User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:25 pm

If a merger didn't happen, player salaries would have continued to explode and both sides would have taken losses. Davis had his opinion, but there is little question the NFL was in a stronger position at the time of the merger. The AFL wasn't desperate, but those rising costs would have likely caught up to them first.

The UFL tried to require transfer payments from the NFL but ran into two problems. First, the NFL wouldn't pay them. Why would they when they could pick up street free agents for nothing and they've always had their players developed for free? The second problem was that players balked at signing with the UFL when they knew they could potentially be hindered from signing with the NFL because the older league wouldn't pay the fee. Trading TV rights brings in no revenue.

Andy J
Site Admin
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:09 am
Location: San Antonio,Texas
Contact:

Post by Andy J » Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:49 pm

[quote=""preeths""]

The UFL tried to require transfer payments from the NFL but ran into two problems. First, the NFL wouldn't pay them. Why would they when they could pick up street free agents for nothing and they've always had their players developed for free? The second problem was that players balked at signing with the UFL when they knew they could potentially be hindered from signing with the NFL because the older league wouldn't pay the fee. Trading TV rights brings in no revenue.[/quote]

That's why I think that players should not be allowed to leave until after the season . If the NFL would become a financial partner, then the players could leave if the NFL assigned them directly and was already paying their salaries, but critical players could cause devastation if they were pulled during the season. That's why I believe that if the NFL invested then they would want to protect that investment and would agree not t try ad sign these players until after the season.
AndyG

User avatar
preeths
Site Admin
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 11:34 pm
Contact:

Post by preeths » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:19 pm

But whatever the NFL owners would invest in a new league would be such a relatively minimal investment, as shown by what they were willing to bear with the the WLAF/NFLE, why would they handcuff themselves from strengthening their main product? They're not going to do that in the fall, that's for certain. Don't let the players leave during the season? Good luck signing anyone who thinks they have a shot with the NFL. That became an issue with the UFL. Late training camp cuts, for instance, were really hesitant to sign with the league if they thought they had any chance of being signed after another player was injured.

Andy J
Site Admin
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:09 am
Location: San Antonio,Texas
Contact:

Post by Andy J » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:20 am

[quote=""preeths""]But whatever the NFL owners would invest in a new league would be such a relatively minimal investment, as shown by what they were willing to bear with the the WLAF/NFLE, why would they handcuff themselves from strengthening their main product? They're not going to do that in the fall, that's for certain. Don't let the players leave during the season? Good luck signing anyone who thinks they have a shot with the NFL. That became an issue with the UFL. Late training camp cuts, for instance, were really hesitant to sign with the league if they thought they had any chance of being signed after another player was injured.[/quote]

You have a very large pool of players that are late cuts how about 32 X 15.
A number will sign. Among others. (The UFL had a good product.) To be released in late November.
They were willing to bear quite a bit with WLAF /NFLE . 1991-92 then 1994-2007. I think that's a long time. They would handcuff themselves to protect their investment and to try to insure the leagues success . Like I said.

Players available in the Fall in game shape to replace injured players is appealing, so who says it can't be in the Fall.
AndyG

4th&long
Site Admin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:56 pm

Post by 4th&long » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:23 am

[quote=""preeths""]If a merger didn't happen, player salaries would have continued to explode and both sides would have taken losses. Davis had his opinion, but there is little question the NFL was in a stronger position at the time of the merger. The AFL wasn't desperate, but those rising costs would have likely caught up to them first.

The UFL tried to require transfer payments from the NFL but ran into two problems. First, the NFL wouldn't pay them. Why would they when they could pick up street free agents for nothing and they've always had their players developed for free? The second problem was that players balked at signing with the UFL when they knew they could potentially be hindered from signing with the NFL because the older league wouldn't pay the fee. Trading TV rights brings in no revenue.[/quote]

[quote=""Andy J""]That's why I think that players should not be allowed to leave until after the season . If the NFL would become a financial partner, then the players could leave if the NFL assigned them directly and was already paying their salaries, but critical players could cause devastation if they were pulled during the season. That's why I believe that if the NFL invested then they would want to protect that investment and would agree not t try ad sign these players until after the season.[/quote]

[quote=""preeths""]But whatever the NFL owners would invest in a new league would be such a relatively minimal investment, as shown by what they were willing to bear with the the WLAF/NFLE, why would they handcuff themselves from strengthening their main product? They're not going to do that in the fall, that's for certain. Don't let the players leave during the season? Good luck signing anyone who thinks they have a shot with the NFL. That became an issue with the UFL. Late training camp cuts, for instance, were really hesitant to sign with the league if they thought they had any chance of being signed after another player was injured.[/quote]

I do not agree that players shouldn't be allowed to leave, just some commonsense limits, this would be in lieu of higher salaries. A win win scenario.

4th&long
Site Admin
Posts: 1167
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:56 pm

Post by 4th&long » Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:26 am

[quote=""Andy J""]You have a very large pool of players that are late cuts how about 32 X 15.
A number will sign. Among others. (The UFL had a good product.) To be released in late November.
They were willing to bear quite a bit with WLAF /NFLE . 1991-92 then 1994-2007. I think that's a long time. They would handcuff themselves to protect their investment and to try to insure the leagues success . Like I said.

Players available in the Fall in game shape to replace injured players is appealing, so who says it can't be in the Fall.[/quote]

Good points

Post Reply

Return to “UFL”