More Deletions on the CIFL Board

[Tatonka]

That's not news... everyone knows they've been courting everyone to join their nation-wide super-league.

We take it as a compliment that other leagues want our teams. That being said, if a CIFL team feels comfortable with the trip to Wyoming in the new AIFA, more power to 'em.

[Crimefighter]

Considering a few teams were practically DRIVEN out of the league...it's no surprise they're looking for someone else to go...especially with a very irresponsible and reckless league official Kevin Keller who should be forced to step down as he has repeatedly run his mouth disparging innocent parties and having to make multiple retractions when confronted with the facts. That guy DOES NOT LEARN. GET RID OF HIM!

[Sykotyk]

We already know Rochester is not happy and just using the talk of going to the AIFA as a way to say 'look at me' to the CIFL.

Remember, not long ago they were talking about AF2, but found out it's too costly. And now they're talking about the UIF.

It's a teenager striking out for attention, nothing more.

Besides, it's better to deal with the devil you know, then the devil you don't.

Sykotyk

[Crimefighter]

Well the Stallions won't be going back, that's for sure.

[ChampionOfSteel]

[quote=""Sykotyk""]...but found out it's too costly.[/quote]
I don't see the gift of vision in you. Not an insult by the way.

More costly = keeps all teams afloat for the entire season is a good thing.

Thinking outside of the box: start a semi pro league for players and coaches that do not get paid. The players and coaches pay a fee to the team president as well. That, in and of itself changes the particulars of your budget and could work to ensure all teams in a small local/regional league make it thru an entire season. Have an eight game regular season (4 home and 4 away). Another idea is the players get paid a commission (equal revenue sharing) if there's anything left after the league's bills have been paid.

[quote=""Sykotyk""]Besides, it's better to deal with the devil you know, then the devil you don't.[/quote]

Haven't seen the movie Braveheart lately, have you? Your comment reminds me of the Irish without balls that fight over the scraps Longshanks leaves them (AIFA alternative). You should go and invade England like the folks in AF2, IFL and WIFL did rather than following your own self-imposed glass ceiling that you must join an existing league, that was a heartbeat from losing teams during the season -- Tallahassee Titans. The AIFA did not have a safety net of sorts in 2007 and probably won't in 2008 if you don't demand it and join them.

You've pissed away your God given right to do it yourself the right way. You've left your success in someone else's hands.

Mercy?! No way! FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!

[Sykotyk]

The problem, CoS, is that you don't get it that Rochester doesn't have the money to join the AF2. It's not that they're just being 'cheap', it's just that they don't have it, and even if they did, they'd still jack up the ticket prices if they did go AF2 and go to the BCA.

So, effectively, despite making it through their season because the AF2 has a ton of money, they'd still have no team at the end of that first season.

Sykotyk

[ChampionOfSteel]

[quote=""Sykotyk""]The problem, CoS, is that you don't get it that Rochester doesn't have the money to join the AF2. It's not that they're just being 'cheap', it's just that they don't have it, and even if they did, they'd still jack up the ticket prices if they did go AF2 and go to the BCA.

So, effectively, despite making it through their season because the AF2 has a ton of money, they'd still have no team at the end of that first season.

Sykotyk[/quote]

Sounds like a good tradeoff to me. Do it right for one year and you're done vs. do it almost right and stick around for 3 years with a few of your fellow teams failing during the season. The first one would be my preference even if that means just two extremely strong extra leagues beyond AF2 end up existing. The others should be labeled semi pro indoor leagues with the format being no one gets paid. Everyone is an amateur. No one gets stiffed under that format. Everyone works their regular job and practices just two nights a week unlike the for-pay leagues.

More good comes from that chosen format -- definite semi pro format or well funded pro league. No one gets stiffed on unfulfilled promises to be paid.

Winging it causes more harm than good (ala CIFL).

Thing are cool on my end as long as you don't take it personally that I point out "some type" of hefty cash account tax system should be in place to ensure everyone makes it through an entire season, when I see you posting stuff that says AF2 or AF2-like business models are too expensive to do. If a league can't conservatively do that, they need to be advertised as an amateur (semi pro) league and not professional and operate accordingly with no intentions to ever pay their players/coaches.

It is all a matter of ethics and conversative business planning, which is frankly the right and just thing to do.

[Sykotyk]

[quote=""ChampionOfSteel""]Sounds like a good tradeoff to me. Do it right for one year and you're done vs. do it almost right and stick around for 3 years with a few of your fellow teams failing during the season. The first one would be my preference even if that means just two extremely strong extra leagues beyond AF2 end up existing. The others should be labeled semi pro indoor leagues with the format being no one gets paid. Everyone is an amateur. No one gets stiffed under that format. Everyone works their regular job and practices just two nights a week unlike the for-pay leagues.[/quote]

I actually agree with you there. The big problem with ALL these leagues, from the AF2 down, is a mandatory amount of pay that every team must pay, regardless if in the end their market can't support it.

More good comes from that chosen format -- definite semi pro format or well funded pro league. No one gets stiffed on unfulfilled promises to be paid.

Winging it causes more harm than good (ala CIFL).

I think the CIFL got in over their head, similar to Haines in 2006. I don't think they thought they were taking a risk with Ramone, because they were misinformed by him how much money he had, and the line-of-credit he had suddenly disappeared midseason.

Thing are cool on my end as long as you don't take it personally that I point out "some type" of hefty cash account tax system should be in place to ensure everyone makes it through an entire season, when I see you posting stuff that says AF2 or AF2-like business models are too expensive to do. If a league can't conservatively do that, they need to be advertised as an amateur (semi pro) league and not professional.

The issue is what you call semi-pro. Despite what the 'semi' and the 'pro' mean separately, decades of history have created the meaning for semi-pro to be a team formed by the players who all pay dues to play, and despite the 'pro' part of their name, don't actually get paid.

If you want to use the 'semi' and 'pro' meanings individually, and then add them together, then any league where a player does not earn his primary or a good portion of, income, then he's semi-pro. Many AFL and CFL players would qualify as many have off-season jobs to compensate their pay in the those leagues.

I don't doubt that the AF2 setup is the best to ensure every team makes it through the season. What I do doubt is that it can sustain MANY teams for a long time when their fans are taxed heavily to subsidize other teams that are failing. 90% of markets wouldn't be able to afford it. Anything under the big-but-not-large markets level that the AF2 tends to occupy (i.e., markets just short of the AFL) would be unable to obtain from ticket sales in their cities enough to not only fund themselves cheaply, but also to help other teams that may fold.

Most indoor teams operate on a $200k-$300k budget. The AF2 is in bigger cities and generally operate on a $600k-$1m budget. Now, when you consider that an AF2 failing can result in a barebones shell of a team playing out the string (even though they're the same players) for about what a barebones CIFL, AIFA, NIFL team could do, they can obtain that amount from their budgets to do that.

It is all a matter of ethics and conversative business planning.

It's great on paper. But in reality, the truth stings.

Many markets would not be able to sustain that, and you'd have a very small group of teams spread throughout the country, where even to the point travel would become a major financial hurdle, and exacerbates the problem.

Sykotyk

[blanketman]

First of all, i know for a fact about Rochester.They are not going to the Af2 league.If Rochester wanted to go they could.Barto has more cash than you could ever dream.The problem is not the money to him;its the pay cut he would have to give his players.For instance,his players on average make about 350 a game.Af2 players make 200.He is going to stay in the CIFL; however,changes must be made.The problem with the CIFL is there needs to be quality ownership.Once the league can cleanse itself of 4 teams.IT will be fine.

[ChampionOfSteel]

[quote=""blanketman""]The problem with the CIFL is there needs to be quality ownership.Once the league can cleanse itself of 4 teams.IT will be fine.[/quote]

It's just not quality ownership that needs repair.

The CIFL needs to examine the lopsided scores issues and perhaps the *game system that may need to be tweaked* before the 2008 season, as well as their public speaking issues, right?

I'm not coming back to Miami Valley or Marion until that stuff gets fixed...and that's with or without solid ownership in place.

*-Yes, I realize many of you think the game system is fine. Let's make sure in the offseason by examining game tape from this year and scrimmaging with new ideas before next year just to be sure.