Page 1 of 6
Down to Nine?
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:12 pm
by panchess
I see the Krunk's two games against East Kentucky are cancelled (I assume forfeited), as are both Patroon games against Great Falls, as evidently Tuckman couldn't secure a site and Albany didn't fly out on a whim.
Therefore it's safe to assume the Krunk weren't sold. Tuckman claims he is going to play Yakama and make the playoffs, according to today's Great Falls paper.
Trying to rent venues?
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:06 pm
by cat1bb1
This is the article in today's paper, something still doesn't smell right...
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/p ... /802250317
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:48 pm
by OKCAVS67
Did Tuckman have the same problems with cash flow last year?
Funny how in the article Michael Tuckman said Sunday that the Patroons remained in New York rather take a costly flight to Montana for only two games.
I thought the cost of travel was spread out among the teams? That is how Atlanta has been traveling for only two games here and there. Maybe he can't afford his half of the travel cost since he can't even pay for a place to play.
He is a peice of work!
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:17 pm
by psbf
I find it interesting that the Krunk game was ppd and the ABA Vision were sold out(according to their release).
...
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:34 pm
by The Magician
[quote=""psbf""]I find it interesting that the Krunk game was ppd and the ABA Vision were sold out(according to their release).[/quote]
LOL ... Believe me, although The Krunk and The Vision are in the same Metro-ATL area, they are a world apart from each other.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:56 pm
by Kev the Cav
I'm not sure when this interview took place, but it was posted on to the Slam Online site on Feb.22. Doesn't say anything about new ownership...
http://slamonline.com/online/2008/02/krunk-aint-dead/
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:33 pm
by OKCAVS67
Couple of comments in that article that stood out to me...
"If I’m still involved next season, and that’s still up in the air,"
and
"I’ve been in the throes of bringing in new majority ownership so we can survive the season"
The article was done on Feb. 23. Does the guy realize that there is only 2 weeks left of the season?
Just sell the team outright to someone that will care about it and pay the players.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:58 pm
by Ken, Steelheads fan
[quote=""OKCAVS67""]Did Tuckman have the same problems with cash flow last year?
Funny how in the article Michael Tuckman said Sunday that the Patroons remained in New York rather take a costly flight to Montana for only two games.
I thought the cost of travel was spread out among the teams? That is how Atlanta has been traveling for only two games here and there. Maybe he can't afford his half of the travel cost since he can't even pay for a place to play.
He is a peice of work![/quote]
The Patroons organization has a history of not meeting its travel obligations late in the season. The Patroons did the same thing in the USBL last summer--refused to travel. It's another big red flag that the Patroons are cash strapped. Great Falls should get the wins by forfeit.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:23 pm
by preeths
[quote=""Ken, Steelheads fan""]The Patroons organization has a history of not meeting its travel obligations late in the season. The Patroons did the same thing in the USBL last summer--refused to travel. It's another big red flag that the Patroons are cash strapped. Great Falls should get the wins by forfeit.[/quote]
I hope you're being sarcastic. If the home team, in this case Great Falls, doesn't have a home court lined up by the time the traveling team needs to go, the home team should forfeit. Tuckman's game of musical home courts should cost his team, not the Patroons.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:31 pm
by besl
[quote=""Ken, Steelheads fan""]The Patroons organization has a history of not meeting its travel obligations late in the season. The Patroons did the same thing in the USBL last summer--refused to travel. It's another big red flag that the Patroons are cash strapped. Great Falls should get the wins by forfeit.[/quote]
This raises an interesting question. Who is typically more to blame when something like this happens?
Is it reasonable to expect Albany to not fly out to Montana without knowing that either of their games are going to be played? Or should they fly all the way out there and show up at the Explorers' offices (which I believe are still padlocked by the police) to be able to claim their forfeit victories?
If Tuckman gave Albany his word <chortle> that they will have a place ready by the time they get there, are they then required to show up despite Tuckman's terrible track record in following through on his word?
Considering everything, I'd just split the games and give each team a forfeit win/loss.
