[quote=""nksports""]I wonder what Trump did with his part of the $3 the league made in its antitrust suit against the NFL (that was $1 with triple damages).[/quote]
The check was never cashed. Steve Ehrhart kept it in a desk drawer and then in a safety deposit box for many years.
Hope they don't pay
[quote=""Sam Hill""]There was no Minnesota team in the USFL.[/quote]
Correct. I meant Michigan and Taubman.
Correct. I meant Michigan and Taubman.
OurSports Central - //www.oursportscentral.com
OSC on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/oursportscentral
OSC on Twitter: http://twitter.com/osctoday
OSC on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/oursportscentral
OSC on Twitter: http://twitter.com/osctoday
[quote=""Sam Hill""]But even comparing the USFL - which was a more-or-less major league, with big-name players and coaches playing in major markets and on major TV networks - to the PIFL is silly. The dynamics of the situation are different. One overspent and the other never had any money to begin with. [/quote]
And this is really the main point. Operationally, the PIFL and the USFL were at two entirely different levels. The lessons that a minor league operation can learn from the USFL need to be taken within some context.
If one thinks the process used to vet USFL owners was lax, they should compare it with any indoor league today. That's not a slap at the indoor leagues; it's simply a matter of resources. The USFL had a good, well-staffed front office full of experienced people. It had time to run financials to a deeper level, more connections in the corporate world, well... probably more of everything. Indoor leagues are run, by and large, on a shoestring by whomever they can find to do the jobs. A couple leagues are likely concerned with prospective ownerships' ability to actually fund their operations, but the leagues only have so many resources to dedicate to really checking out franchise applicants.
Plus, an indoor owner just doesn't have all that much into the operation, really. There's nothing to prevent them from telling their league, "You know what, guys? It's been fun, but I'm tapped out," even weeks before the season opener.
And this is really the main point. Operationally, the PIFL and the USFL were at two entirely different levels. The lessons that a minor league operation can learn from the USFL need to be taken within some context.
If one thinks the process used to vet USFL owners was lax, they should compare it with any indoor league today. That's not a slap at the indoor leagues; it's simply a matter of resources. The USFL had a good, well-staffed front office full of experienced people. It had time to run financials to a deeper level, more connections in the corporate world, well... probably more of everything. Indoor leagues are run, by and large, on a shoestring by whomever they can find to do the jobs. A couple leagues are likely concerned with prospective ownerships' ability to actually fund their operations, but the leagues only have so many resources to dedicate to really checking out franchise applicants.
Plus, an indoor owner just doesn't have all that much into the operation, really. There's nothing to prevent them from telling their league, "You know what, guys? It's been fun, but I'm tapped out," even weeks before the season opener.
OurSports Central - //www.oursportscentral.com
OSC on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/oursportscentral
OSC on Twitter: http://twitter.com/osctoday
OSC on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/oursportscentral
OSC on Twitter: http://twitter.com/osctoday