[quote=""Caballo Diablo""]Nope, my cable provider doesn't even offer it. Not that I want it though.[/quote]
I'm sorry CD, I feel bad for you. That's the equivalent of still having dial up ISP. Stay positive, things will pick up for you.
Unfortunatly your missing some great AFL and CFL action.
IFL off season
Indoor fan, you're taking a break from the boards until you can control your compulsion to derail threads in the IFL forum.
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
-
Buffalo Super Fan
- Site Admin
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:27 pm
[quote=""preeths""]Back to the topic at hand, what should the IFL do in the offseason?[/quote]
Put a team in Buffalo, New York but I am bias on that subject preeths. I would really like a IFL team in Buffalo so my city can play the IFL Rochester Raiders as rivals like we do in IL baseball and NLL indoor lacrosse. See that is why I think the IFL is a good idea because Buffalo and Rochester are so close together as cities.
Also some IFL fans would be a surprise to learn Buffalo and Rochester are about the same size metro population I am talking about. Buffalo is thought of by some fans as bigger because we have NFL and NHL but actually were about the same size now with Buffalo losing population faster then Rochester so Rochester has caught up in metro size to Buffalo about 1 million people give or take a few. Just a little nugget for those IFL fans that might think the IFL wouldn't be the right fit for a city like Buffalo.
Plus Thurman Thomas owns part of the Rochester Raiders IFL. Thurman Thomas calls Buffalo home now. I wonder if he would be interested someday owning a IFL team in Buffalo on his own with investers. Just a thought because he was involved once trying to bring a AF2 team to Buffalo with one of the former Rochester Raiders owners a few years ago. Let's Go Buffalo
Put a team in Buffalo, New York but I am bias on that subject preeths. I would really like a IFL team in Buffalo so my city can play the IFL Rochester Raiders as rivals like we do in IL baseball and NLL indoor lacrosse. See that is why I think the IFL is a good idea because Buffalo and Rochester are so close together as cities.
Also some IFL fans would be a surprise to learn Buffalo and Rochester are about the same size metro population I am talking about. Buffalo is thought of by some fans as bigger because we have NFL and NHL but actually were about the same size now with Buffalo losing population faster then Rochester so Rochester has caught up in metro size to Buffalo about 1 million people give or take a few. Just a little nugget for those IFL fans that might think the IFL wouldn't be the right fit for a city like Buffalo.
Plus Thurman Thomas owns part of the Rochester Raiders IFL. Thurman Thomas calls Buffalo home now. I wonder if he would be interested someday owning a IFL team in Buffalo on his own with investers. Just a thought because he was involved once trying to bring a AF2 team to Buffalo with one of the former Rochester Raiders owners a few years ago. Let's Go Buffalo
Last edited by Buffalo Super Fan on Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:53 am, edited 8 times in total.
The above post is in my opinion and I have no proof or link. I am just a Buffalo sports fan.
-
jerry101jlh
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:37 pm
Others may look at it differently, but I don't see Dittman leaving the IFL as a bad thing. Here you have an owner than that shown when he can't have things his way, he takes his ball and goes home. But that aside and this being a conversation of what the IFL needs to address in the off season it does open up the question of the leagues stability and what owners need to do to make things more stable. If other Texas teams follow suit, what does that mean?
Other subject on getting national sponsorships. Granted other leagues may have tried and again I am talking from personal experience. This takes time, not something that happens in one season. Revenue won't be plentiful early on, but requires a dedicated effort to this project. In my opinion you don't go after the big names, but smaller national brands and even wannabes. You might see some willing to come on board and trade out services or product only to begin with, but with even brand you sign, makes it easier to get the next one. Also requires hiring someone who has real experience and a track record in buying national sponsors, someone who knows the ins and outs of the program. This should not be an added expense as this person generally is a commission only type.
I don't feel that television deals garnish enough income to make them worth the time, but one might consider a real push on internet broadcasting of all games. Not talking the b2Network stuff that is basically game film, but quality broadcasts. If a league produces its on own games it controls the advertising and gets near 100% of the revenue. Streaming games or any content is starting to take hold, becoming the new TV of sorts and with viewers being able to connect to their TV with their computers opens up this area for quality game programming.
A league has limited avenues on generating revenue outside of team dues and expansion, but any revenue gained through other sources is helpful to the cause.
Other subject on getting national sponsorships. Granted other leagues may have tried and again I am talking from personal experience. This takes time, not something that happens in one season. Revenue won't be plentiful early on, but requires a dedicated effort to this project. In my opinion you don't go after the big names, but smaller national brands and even wannabes. You might see some willing to come on board and trade out services or product only to begin with, but with even brand you sign, makes it easier to get the next one. Also requires hiring someone who has real experience and a track record in buying national sponsors, someone who knows the ins and outs of the program. This should not be an added expense as this person generally is a commission only type.
I don't feel that television deals garnish enough income to make them worth the time, but one might consider a real push on internet broadcasting of all games. Not talking the b2Network stuff that is basically game film, but quality broadcasts. If a league produces its on own games it controls the advertising and gets near 100% of the revenue. Streaming games or any content is starting to take hold, becoming the new TV of sorts and with viewers being able to connect to their TV with their computers opens up this area for quality game programming.
A league has limited avenues on generating revenue outside of team dues and expansion, but any revenue gained through other sources is helpful to the cause.
-
NatePreds05
- Site Admin
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:43 pm
[quote=""Bouncer_Texxx""]In a perfect world, you'd be right. I think a lot more of the league lives closer to "paycheck to paycheck' however. Socking it away ahead of time isn't much of an option. Much like your everyday family placing a years worth of car payments aside in January.
Where "indoor fan" and the rest of us are disagreeing it to him the league delineations are black and white, the rest of us see shades of gray.
The IFL's 2010 issues were largely due to financial instability of a few teams, and the inability of other teams to want to spend money. were Arkansas and Amarillo just biding their time until they could hope to get into the afl d-league? Does the AFL have enough clout and pull to support a d-league in 2011? I'm thinking not, but that's for ANOTHER THREAD IN A DIFFERENT FORUM... the IFL needs to work to address the reasons the Texas teams want to leave, again... certain owners having a lot of pull at the league level[/quote]
Securing money up front from each team for their players is the only way to ensure all players get paid. It has been successful in the af2 and the new AFL. It also allows for league wide group insurance for players which brings insurance costs down. And then there will never be a ThunderHawks like situation with few being paid or being paid lower than the normal weekly pay. It also makes it easier when an Alaska type situation happens.
Where "indoor fan" and the rest of us are disagreeing it to him the league delineations are black and white, the rest of us see shades of gray.
The IFL's 2010 issues were largely due to financial instability of a few teams, and the inability of other teams to want to spend money. were Arkansas and Amarillo just biding their time until they could hope to get into the afl d-league? Does the AFL have enough clout and pull to support a d-league in 2011? I'm thinking not, but that's for ANOTHER THREAD IN A DIFFERENT FORUM... the IFL needs to work to address the reasons the Texas teams want to leave, again... certain owners having a lot of pull at the league level[/quote]
Securing money up front from each team for their players is the only way to ensure all players get paid. It has been successful in the af2 and the new AFL. It also allows for league wide group insurance for players which brings insurance costs down. And then there will never be a ThunderHawks like situation with few being paid or being paid lower than the normal weekly pay. It also makes it easier when an Alaska type situation happens.
-
jerry101jlh
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:37 pm
[quote=""NatePreds05""]Securing money up front from each team for their players is the only way to ensure all players get paid. It has been successful in the af2 and the new AFL. It also allows for league wide group insurance for players which brings insurance costs down. And then there will never be a ThunderHawks like situation with few being paid or being paid lower than the normal weekly pay. It also makes it easier when an Alaska type situation happens.[/quote]
What you say is 100% right, unfortunately I don't see IFL or any other of the big 4 owners voting to make that happen. Its simply the right thing to do to protect your product (players) and for the sport in general.
Take away the high cost of entry and operating costs and the af2 had some very good ideas going for them. And I am not pro AFL/af2, just feel some of their ideas were very good.
What you say is 100% right, unfortunately I don't see IFL or any other of the big 4 owners voting to make that happen. Its simply the right thing to do to protect your product (players) and for the sport in general.
Take away the high cost of entry and operating costs and the af2 had some very good ideas going for them. And I am not pro AFL/af2, just feel some of their ideas were very good.
-
Bouncer_Texxx
- Site Admin
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:28 pm
Like i said.. it's the riht thing to do, but I don't think any of us could afford to put the money for all of our annual truck payments into the piggy bank in janurary... you're talking about $73,500 in cash available... which maybe isn't much to some of these teams, but I dare say that's a huge chunk of change to others..
-
jerry101jlh
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:37 pm
[quote=""Bouncer_Texxx""]Like i said.. it's the riht thing to do, but I don't think any of us could afford to put the money for all of our annual truck payments into the piggy bank in janurary... you're talking about $73,500 in cash available... which maybe isn't much to some of these teams, but I dare say that's a huge chunk of change to others..[/quote]
To be honest if I were an owner and even though agree "right thing to do" I do not know if I would vote for it, especially if my war chest wasn't the richest around.
To be honest if I were an owner and even though agree "right thing to do" I do not know if I would vote for it, especially if my war chest wasn't the richest around.
Making the post in this thread because this is something that the team did in the offseason...
I happened to take a look at the West Michigan ThunderHawks website yesterday. They appear to have ticket prices for 2011 posted. If accurate, they are going to charge $40 for front row seats, and $25 for the 'level' of seats beyond that. Do they actually think they're going to get people to pay those prices? This is the team that last season averaged barely 500 per game when they charged a flat $10 price for ANY seat!
I happened to take a look at the West Michigan ThunderHawks website yesterday. They appear to have ticket prices for 2011 posted. If accurate, they are going to charge $40 for front row seats, and $25 for the 'level' of seats beyond that. Do they actually think they're going to get people to pay those prices? This is the team that last season averaged barely 500 per game when they charged a flat $10 price for ANY seat!
