The Home of Arena Football Fans since 1998

ArenaFan.com :: View topic - Breaking: IFL Expansion Annoucement
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ    SearchSearch  ProfileProfile  Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages  
Breaking: IFL Expansion Annoucement
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic Reply to topic    ArenaFan.com Forum Index -> AFL
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DiamondThief
All Pro

Joined: 19 Nov 2013
Location: West Coast
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArenaFanJersey wrote:
Its the Indoor Football Forum. Its a group page and thought you need to have access to see since its private. I'll see what I can do.

Really seemed that Arizona really is footing the bill for the league either directly or indirectly with a little from Green Bay and Iowa.

I remember hearing that even Cedar Rapids wasn't that strong financially last season compared to the past for whatever reason or various different ones. I think that from what I've read from people more knowledgeable it goes Arizona, Iowa, Green Bay then a giant gap Nebraska, Cedar Rapids, and 2 new teams when it comes to finances.

Which people are "more knowledgeable? Cause, I can tell you for a fact, according to my researched sources, that Nebraska is actually pretty decently financially viable.

You might want to cease commenting on things about which you know absolutely nothing.
_________________
This post has been screen-grabbed to prevent tampering and plagerism.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
ArenaFanJersey
Starter

Joined: 23 Mar 2014
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diamondthief we will see who is right at the end of the day. I will go with my research and you can go with yours. No big deal.

All I do know for a fact is a lot of people on this message board had pegged the IFL for taking the leap towards competing with the AFL. The league now is #3 or maybe #4 depending on how NAL shakes out this offseason.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
billscarnage
MVP

Joined: 27 Jun 2013
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArenaFanJersey wrote:
Diamondthief we will see who is right at the end of the day. I will go with my research and you can go with yours. No big deal.

All I do know for a fact is a lot of people on this message board had pegged the IFL for taking the leap towards competing with the AFL. The league now is #3 or maybe #4 depending on how NAL shakes out this offseason.

You obviously didn't get the memo that DT's sources are gospel and everyone else's are essentially the quality of CNN's 'anonymous' sources.
Wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
billscarnage
MVP

Joined: 27 Jun 2013
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AFLNerd36 wrote:
4th&long wrote:
That's why I hope the rumor of Tucson expansion is true. That's a 1mm plus metro area and if done well should get at least Iowa sized attendance.


Tucson is also home of the Roadrunners, the AHL affiliate of the Coyotes... so, it's possible that if the Coyotes ownership wants to get into the AFL, they could buy the Tucson team when the Rattlers return... plus, that's a massive rivalry opportunity there. The Territorial Cup rivalry is big here in AZ; if any of that carries over into a Rattlers-Tucson rivalry, it'll get intense fast....

I wouldn't get too excited about Tucson, especially with the Coyotes. Barring some mystery white knight or the greatest save in sports history, the Coyotes are likely to be gone in a couple of years.

Though it would be fun if Shurts pulled a Leonsis and started his own second team in Tucson. Then in a few years the Rattlers jump back to the AFL - with it's new CBA and salary cap, and all. The Tucson team then becomes a feeder/minor league team for the Rattlers.

Hmmmm..... Nuts
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Desperado
 

Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Location: Texas
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What happened to Portland and Idaho?
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Desperado wrote:
What happened to Portland and Idaho?


No word on either of those two as yet, and I'm thinking likely not as they are out of the low-cost travel zone of the 'group of 6' close by each other in plains/midwest (GB, WM, Bloomington, CR, Iowa, Nebraska).

I think they'd be better off picking off some 'larger' market CIF teams next year close by the 6 then having more teams way out, at least in short term. And I can only see Wichita, Quad City and Sioux Falls as targets. With the possible exception of Tuscon as its a natural with AZ there and a large population base.

Hopefully at least 1 of the CIF to IFL converts makes in to 2019.

I'm not quite sure of the financials of a IFL or CIF team but going by comments made in articles, interviews and some analysis I would imagine it cost between 425-650k to run a smaller franchise and league. So if you back in ticket revenue (and each team has different price points) you can see thats why 3k attend. across 7 games at $20 avg (net) is minimum - assuming some sponsor rev too.

I'm certainly no expert so if anyone has DETAILS on cost break downs that would be much appreciated to post or post a link.

But assuming that's correct AZ and Iowa and killing it (jax too in NAL) and likely really benefiting from move to IFL. And they don't want to lower their competition - as I'd surmised - to CIF level for fear of revenue drop off.

WF owners says he was losing $250k a year (since 2014) and hopes to cut that to no more than $50k annually in the CIF. WOW!

http://krro.com/news/articles/2017/sep/12/two-departures-one-addition-to-cif/

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/sports/local/2017/07/25/potential-changes-store-nighthawks/510385001/
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mojodcat
 

Joined: 14 Sep 2017
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Desperado wrote:
What happened to Portland and Idaho?


(Long time, first time..)

Both of those decided not to waste their money once Spokane folded. Why pay $20,000 x 3 for flights to Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and wherever you'd fly into Green Bay...

let me also quick comment on a few other random things..


Quote:
Cause, I can tell you for a fact, according to my researched sources, that Nebraska is actually pretty decently financially viable.

Nebraska: Bossellman company doing VERY well, owns a metric sh*t ton of giant truck stops in the upper midwest. The Danger, however are drawing, maybe 1000 per game for a team that has made the playoffs each of the last 5 seasons. Helping disprove the theory that winning actually makes a difference in fan attendance.

WM and BLO to the IFL... scuttlebutt I've heard is that these teams were approached by the IFL and said here is enough money to cover your 2017 losses($75,000-$100,000), come play in the IFL next season. Now, if this is true it doesn't take a advanced degree in calculus to see that the largest checkbook in the room is the former arena league team drawing, allegedly, 13,000 fans a game, and still paying AFL ticket prices.

My supposition on Sioux Falls is that the source of the actual checkbook has changed, and not nearly as thick as it used to be, so the CIF, with it's lower league fees, better travel and diversity of teams makes a lot more sense. You can drive from Sioux Falls to Sioux City and back and Omaha and back and spend less time in a bus (and no hotel rooms for players) than you can simply going to Grand Island or Des Moines.

The Cedar Rapids ownership group has completely turned their focus and money to their indoor soccer team, and barely made it through 2017. Bills were late, rumors of players not paid on time, the usual junk. Shocked their back at all, drawing hundreds a game.

The merger failed, from what I've heard, because "certain teams" (guessing Iowa and Arizona) demanded a 16 game season and keep the IFL name, and their commissioner, who's allegedly making $60,000 a year for what maybe 6 months of work? The CIF ownership basically said if you want to play with us, you've got to join our league, follow our rules, else see ya. I'm guessing Iowa and Arizona because the fans there would not continue to pay AFL, or almost AFL prices for the "drop" to the CIF. Front row in AZ was $125 per game per seat.. (twice what Sioux Falls charges in a 3 year old 11,000 seat arena IA is $70 for the front row, Sioux Falls is $65 for the club seats front row, Green Bay is $35


Please, any other questions about the main alphabet leagues, ask away.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mojodcat wrote:
Desperado wrote:
What happened to Portland and Idaho?


(Long time, first time..)

Both of those decided not to waste their money once Spokane folded. Why pay $20,000 x 3 for flights to Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and wherever you'd fly into Green Bay...

let me also quick comment on a few other random things..


Quote:
Cause, I can tell you for a fact, according to my researched sources, that Nebraska is actually pretty decently financially viable.

Nebraska: Bossellman company doing VERY well, owns a metric sh*t ton of giant truck stops in the upper midwest. The Danger, however are drawing, maybe 1000 per game for a team that has made the playoffs each of the last 5 seasons. Helping disprove the theory that winning actually makes a difference in fan attendance.

WM and BLO to the IFL... scuttlebutt I've heard is that these teams were approached by the IFL and said here is enough money to cover your 2017 losses($75,000-$100,000), come play in the IFL next season. Now, if this is true it doesn't take a advanced degree in calculus to see that the largest checkbook in the room is the former arena league team drawing, allegedly, 13,000 fans a game, and still paying AFL ticket prices.

My supposition on Sioux Falls is that the source of the actual checkbook has changed, and not nearly as thick as it used to be, so the CIF, with it's lower league fees, better travel and diversity of teams makes a lot more sense. You can drive from Sioux Falls to Sioux City and back and Omaha and back and spend less time in a bus (and no hotel rooms for players) than you can simply going to Grand Island or Des Moines.

The Cedar Rapids ownership group has completely turned their focus and money to their indoor soccer team, and barely made it through 2017. Bills were late, rumors of players not paid on time, the usual junk. Shocked their back at all, drawing hundreds a game.

The merger failed, from what I've heard, because "certain teams" (guessing Iowa and Arizona) demanded a 16 game season and keep the IFL name, and their commissioner, who's allegedly making $60,000 a year for what maybe 6 months of work? The CIF ownership basically said if you want to play with us, you've got to join our league, follow our rules, else see ya. I'm guessing Iowa and Arizona because the fans there would not continue to pay AFL, or almost AFL prices for the "drop" to the CIF. Front row in AZ was $125 per game per seat.. (twice what Sioux Falls charges in a 3 year old 11,000 seat arena IA is $70 for the front row, Sioux Falls is $65 for the club seats front row, Green Bay is $35


Please, any other questions about the main alphabet leagues, ask away.


I've been saying AZ and IOWA will NOT go to CIF for that just those reasons, just by common sense deduction. Smart move by them and the league. They'd be better off going to NAL then CIF.

Also not surprised that AZ and/or Iowa would subsidize teams (Bloom/WM) up to a certain amount and travel to AZ too. It helps them and benefits AZ - MLB subsidizes smaller market teams and NFL does it thru TV rev sharing or the Pack would be gone. AND this IS the reason the IFL needs to cater to AZ and Iowa and NAL needs to do same for Jax as they can generate money that the other teams can only dream of.

Per IFL website Nebraska was averaging almost 3k a game, though on youtube looked less. Either way that's what they are reporting. But I disagree that it dis-spells the myth that winning franchises always draw. What it illustrates is population centers of under 100k aren't able to support teams in large numbers. Its really small....
>>Grand Island is a city in and the county seat of Hall County, Nebraska, United States. The population was 48,520 at the 2010 census.
Grand Island is the principal city of the Grand Island metropolitan area, which consists of Hall, Merrick, Howard and Hamilton counties. The Grand Island metropolitan area has an official population of 83,472 residents.<<

IMO SF screwed up, they did not expect WM and Bloom to leave and when you add Iowa/CR/Neb/GB their travel was fine - WF is a diff story and moving to CIF made sense for multiple reasons including travel.

SF just had no clue WM/Bloom where leaving.
FYI - During the WF press conference the owner said IFL was down to 5 teams - they got totally caught off guard.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mojodcat
 

Joined: 14 Sep 2017
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
IMO SF screwed up, they did not expect WM and Bloom to leave and when you add Iowa/CR/Neb/GB their travel was fine - WF is a diff story and moving to CIF made sense for multiple reasons including travel.


Or, after Sioux Falls announced, the IFL went full scramble mode and reached out to the struggling end of the CIF. You could fit an average crowd from either WM or BLO in your living room, so as far as the quality of the "trade" if you will, the CIF got a much better deal.

Storm announced that the IFL is dropping it's pay to $175 a game. CIF salary cap is $3800 or roughly $171 if you paid everyone evenly. So, that flattens the landscape as far as payroll goes. Travel is much improved at the far end for Sioux Falls in the CIF, and only 6 road trips, versus 8 in the IFL and you won't be playing Cedar Rapids and Green Bay 3 times from a "quality" standpoint as both were very bad teams on the field last season.


IFL
NEB - 4.5 hours
IA 4.5 hours
CR 5 hours
Green Bay 8 hours
AZ - plane trip
WF 12 hours

CIF
SC 1 hour
OMA 3 hours
KC & BIS 6 hours
SAL 7 hours
QC 6.5 hours

I think, from a fan engagement perspective, getting the Sioux Falls, Sioux City and Omaha "band" back together is a big plus for the teams and the league. Fans will travel with higher percentages when there's no overnight lodging involved, which ALL of the IFL road trips almost required. I once drove back from Grand Island after a game, and I'd sooner go to prison than ever make that drive again.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mojodcat wrote:
Quote:
IMO SF screwed up, they did not expect WM and Bloom to leave and when you add Iowa/CR/Neb/GB their travel was fine - WF is a diff story and moving to CIF made sense for multiple reasons including travel.


Or, after Sioux Falls announced, the IFL went full scramble mode and reached out to the struggling end of the CIF. You could fit an average crowd from either WM or BLO in your living room, so as far as the quality of the "trade" if you will, the CIF got a much better deal.

Storm announced that the IFL is dropping it's pay to $175 a game. CIF salary cap is $3800 or roughly $171 if you paid everyone evenly. So, that flattens the landscape as far as payroll goes. Travel is much improved at the far end for Sioux Falls in the CIF, and only 6 road trips, versus 8 in the IFL and you won't be playing Cedar Rapids and Green Bay 3 times from a "quality" standpoint as both were very bad teams on the field last season.


IFL
NEB - 4.5 hours
IA 4.5 hours
CR 5 hours
Green Bay 8 hours
AZ - plane trip
WF 12 hours

CIF
SC 1 hour
OMA 3 hours
KC & BIS 6 hours
SAL 7 hours
QC 6.5 hours

I think, from a fan engagement perspective, getting the Sioux Falls, Sioux City and Omaha "band" back together is a big plus for the teams and the league. Fans will travel with higher percentages when there's no overnight lodging involved, which ALL of the IFL road trips almost required. I once drove back from Grand Island after a game, and I'd sooner go to prison than ever make that drive again.


Well let's look at the real picture, sure CIF is a bit better, but it wasn't too bad esp with the latest developments and factoring subsidies:

IFL
NEB - 4.5 hours
IA 4.5 hours
CR 5 hours
Green Bay 8 hours

ADD:
Bloomington 8 hrs
Muskegon, Michigan 10 hrs

AZ - plane trip - PAID by AZ
WF - GONE

As far as Storm (a non IFL team) announcing the IFL player rate... lets get confirmation - cause that would just be another reason for Storm to STAY and they could just be making the switch sound better. If you get a news article on that please link. Player salaries aren't the main driver anyway. Also AZ and IOWA did not want to lower standards is what we heard too. This contradicts that.

IFL is considered the next step down from AFL still.

Sounds like there's some piss and vinegar going on between the leagues and I have no interest in getting into that discussion. Hopefully both leagues reach their goals.
_________________
4th


Last edited by 4th&long on Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mojodcat
 

Joined: 14 Sep 2017
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Also AZ and IOWA did not want to lower standards is what we heard too.....*snip* Sounds like there's some piss and vinegar going on between the leagues


What standards, though, are actually better in the CIF than the IFL outside of a perception that has been driven by the leagues themselves... (see also "ankle biter" of years gone by) To the eye test, Cedar Rapids, Green Bay would have been equally bad in the CIF, and Texas (in Allen, now Frisco) and Omaha would have been competitive in the IFL I think the two leagues are a lot closer in talent than the casual fan cares to look at.

As for the last part. I agree, there's just too much ego involved in the sport across all of the levels. The 50 yard game outside of a precious few enclaves in the various leagues has completely jumped the shark.

Hopefully for the sake of those great fans in Arizona is that the franchise can tread water long enough to get the AFL back out west again. They don't deserve all the bovine manure that comes along with these stupid indoor leagues.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
billscarnage
MVP

Joined: 27 Jun 2013
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mojodcat wrote:
Hopefully for the sake of those great fans in Arizona is that the franchise can tread water long enough to get the AFL back out west again. They don't deserve all the bovine manure that comes along with these stupid indoor leagues.

FWIW, Shurts has stated in the past that he loses money with the Rattlers and he's fine with that. He's a fan (STH when they started) first, owner second.

Being in the IFL with the reduced salaries might have reduced the losses or maybe even break even. He needs competition to keep the brand going long enough to hopefully jump back to the AFL at some point. I said last year when the left, that the fans here will support them no matter where they play... as long as they keep winning.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

billscarnage wrote:
mojodcat wrote:
Hopefully for the sake of those great fans in Arizona is that the franchise can tread water long enough to get the AFL back out west again. They don't deserve all the bovine manure that comes along with these stupid indoor leagues.

FWIW, Shurts has stated in the past that he loses money with the Rattlers and he's fine with that. He's a fan (STH when they started) first, owner second.

Being in the IFL with the reduced salaries might have reduced the losses or maybe even break even. He needs competition to keep the brand going long enough to hopefully jump back to the AFL at some point. I said last year when the left, that the fans here will support them no matter where they play... as long as they keep winning.


I'd really like to see those financials cause at 13k a game in attendance at Rattler prices he's got to be pulling in $3mm+; I'd be surprised if he's not making a solid profit, in the IFL. In the AFL with all the shared cost of the other defunct teams and high league expenses - that's different.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
AFLNerd36
Starter

Joined: 19 Jun 2016
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4th&long wrote:
billscarnage wrote:
mojodcat wrote:
Hopefully for the sake of those great fans in Arizona is that the franchise can tread water long enough to get the AFL back out west again. They don't deserve all the bovine manure that comes along with these stupid indoor leagues.

FWIW, Shurts has stated in the past that he loses money with the Rattlers and he's fine with that. He's a fan (STH when they started) first, owner second.

Being in the IFL with the reduced salaries might have reduced the losses or maybe even break even. He needs competition to keep the brand going long enough to hopefully jump back to the AFL at some point. I said last year when the left, that the fans here will support them no matter where they play... as long as they keep winning.


I'd really like to see those financials cause at 13k a game in attendance at Rattler prices he's got to be pulling in $3mm+; I'd be surprised if he's not making a solid profit, in the IFL. In the AFL with all the shared cost of the other defunct teams and high league expenses - that's different.


I'm sure he's making a profit; I also think that if the AFL hadn't been subsidizing the Steel and having to pick up for when JAX and LA allegedly stopped paying the players, Shurts would have made a profit last year. Additionally, Shurts is making lots of money from his two companies in AZ- I think one of them handles investments, while the other is more in real estate. (If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.) I think, if the AFL gets things sorted out in a few years, we'll be seeing the Rattlers return to the AFL by 2021.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
mactheknife
Starter

Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mojodcat wrote:
The merger failed, from what I've heard, because "certain teams" (guessing Iowa and Arizona) demanded a 16 game season and keep the IFL name, and their commissioner, who's allegedly making $60,000 a year for what maybe 6 months of work? The CIF ownership basically said if you want to play with us, you've got to join our league, follow our rules, else see ya.


I could certainly understand that. The IFL name is more marketable long-term. Keeping their Commissioner wouldn't seem like much of a deal-breaker to me, especially if that $60K figure is accurate - that's nothing, and if that's all the IFL is paying Michael Allshouse, he's either a relatively powerless figurehead who was more interested in his title than his salary, or he's a piss-poor negotiator who's underqualified for the position he holds.

What I'd have considered a "win win" for all would've been to have kept the IFL name, played a 14 game schedule, adjust the player salary structure to somewhere in between where the CIF and IFL are currently, and skewed divisional alignments to minimize travel costs to the best extent possible.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mactheknife wrote:
mojodcat wrote:
The merger failed, from what I've heard, because "certain teams" (guessing Iowa and Arizona) demanded a 16 game season and keep the IFL name, and their commissioner, who's allegedly making $60,000 a year for what maybe 6 months of work? The CIF ownership basically said if you want to play with us, you've got to join our league, follow our rules, else see ya.


I could certainly understand that. The IFL name is more marketable long-term. Keeping their Commissioner wouldn't seem like much of a deal-breaker to me, especially if that $60K figure is accurate - that's nothing, and if that's all the IFL is paying Michael Allshouse, he's either a relatively powerless figurehead who was more interested in his title than his salary, or he's a piss-poor negotiator who's underqualified for the position he holds.

What I'd have considered a "win win" for all would've been to have kept the IFL name, played a 14 game schedule, adjust the player salary structure to somewhere in between where the CIF and IFL are currently, and skewed divisional alignments to minimize travel costs to the best extent possible.


Thing is AZ and Iowa have a lot more to lose than many of these teams treading water. They are just looking for a stable and competitive environment with a certain level of polish that alllows them to keep 13k & 7.5-8k attendance respectively.

Let's look at what WF was saying - they were losing 250k a yr in IFL and hope to drop that to 50k loss annually in CIF, a saving of 200k. Of that savings, maybe 40k is travel cost savings. This is all from WF owner interviews in print and video.

So the cost structure of the CIF is clearly lower than that of the IFL, its video production is lower and the play (perceived or real) is lower. Its a lower league, period. AZ and Iowa already stepped down from the AFL they have managed to maintained sales but they aren't willing to risk much more.

Also why be a league of 20 teams? It just makes winning it all that much harder.

AZ is not going back to the AFL unless Butera model is abandoned. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

What I'd like to see is a non-butera model league of teams in more sizable markets Iowa sized and up. That would be a true AAA or possible competitor to the AFL in a good way. NAL and IFL are both partially that way. IFL should be looking to poach the larger mkt teams from CIF that fit in their geographic region.

Anyway that's how I see it.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
AFLNerd36
Starter

Joined: 19 Jun 2016
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That makes an NAL-IFL merger look attractive, but at the same time, I think the AFL is looking to use the Butera model as a starting point; until the league reaches 12 teams, the AFL will be accepting NBA/NHL owners... once the league is stable with 12 teams, the AFL will likely be open to selecting a few owners outside of that model (Shurts is a likely candidate, while Bouchy is not.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AFLNerd36 wrote:
That makes an NAL-IFL merger look attractive, but at the same time, I think the AFL is looking to use the Butera model as a starting point; until the league reaches 12 teams, the AFL will be accepting NBA/NHL owners... once the league is stable with 12 teams, the AFL will likely be open to selecting a few owners outside of that model (Shurts is a likely candidate, while Bouchy is not.


Well an NAL IFL merger eh, they are geographically separated and both not strong enough on their own. Perhaps run as almost 2 separate schedules that meet in the playoff. But really a merger is not necessary (at least now) unless one collapses and teams need a home.

I have not heard anything to say the Butera model is only a starting point. It sounds like its their only approach, and they seem pretty adamant about it. Maybe I missed something where they said otherwise but that's all I've heard.
If they did make a change both AZ and Jax should be considered I would hope.

If you hear otherwise, that would be a softening in their stance and be a MAJOR shift. Who knows they may buckle.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
AFLNerd36
Starter

Joined: 19 Jun 2016
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4th&long wrote:
AFLNerd36 wrote:
That makes an NAL-IFL merger look attractive, but at the same time, I think the AFL is looking to use the Butera model as a starting point; until the league reaches 12 teams, the AFL will be accepting NBA/NHL owners... once the league is stable with 12 teams, the AFL will likely be open to selecting a few owners outside of that model (Shurts is a likely candidate, while Bouchy is not.


Well an NAL IFL merger eh, they are geographically separated and both not strong enough on their own. Perhaps run as almost 2 separate schedules that meet in the playoff. But really a merger is not necessary (at least now) unless one collapses and teams need a home.


That would be similar to what the AAL will be doing this coming season... and there is talk of them merging with the NAL in the near future... but that's a maybe at this point.

4th&long wrote:
I have not heard anything to say the Butera model is only a starting point. It sounds like its their only approach, and they seem pretty adamant about it. Maybe I missed something where they said otherwise but that's all I've heard.


Leonsis indicated that the AFL's goal is to get to 12 stable teams before expanding to the west... with 12 stable teams, I think the AFL will be fine with accepting some owners outside of the Butera model. Additionally, the AFL being stable would be MORE appealing to NBA/NHL owners, increasing the likelihood of other, committed team owners.

4th&long wrote:
If they did make a change both AZ and Jax should be considered I would hope.


AZ would be allowed in with no problem; however, Bouchy might need to either publicly apologize or have Shahid Khan (the Jacksonville Jaguars' owner) buy a minority share of the Sharks to be let in. I think the Sharks left on bad terms, while the Rattlers left on overall good terms. In fact, the Rattlers staff, including Kevin Guy and Ron Shurts, complimented the AFL, and stated that the reason for departing was due to concerns about the league shutting down for a season in 2017. Of course, the travel schedule would have been a nightmare....

4th&long wrote:
If you hear otherwise, that would be a softening in their stance and be a MAJOR shift. Who knows they may buckle.


I think they will soften in their position after they have at least 12 stable teams. If they have a season of 12 teams that don't fold, then look for westward expansion and slow but increasing growth in the South and the Southwest... in fact, I would not be surprised if the only state in the Southwest/Four Corners region without an AFL team in 2026 is New Mexico.
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
4th&long
Starter

Joined: 05 May 2017
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AFLNerd36 wrote:
4th&long wrote:
AFLNerd36 wrote:
That makes an NAL-IFL merger look attractive, but at the same time, I think the AFL is looking to use the Butera model as a starting point; until the league reaches 12 teams, the AFL will be accepting NBA/NHL owners... once the league is stable with 12 teams, the AFL will likely be open to selecting a few owners outside of that model (Shurts is a likely candidate, while Bouchy is not.


Well an NAL IFL merger eh, they are geographically separated and both not strong enough on their own. Perhaps run as almost 2 separate schedules that meet in the playoff. But really a merger is not necessary (at least now) unless one collapses and teams need a home.


1) That would be similar to what the AAL will be doing this coming season... and there is talk of them merging with the NAL in the near future... but that's a maybe at this point.

4th&long wrote:
I have not heard anything to say the Butera model is only a starting point. It sounds like its their only approach, and they seem pretty adamant about it. Maybe I missed something where they said otherwise but that's all I've heard.


2) Leonsis indicated that the AFL's goal is to get to 12 stable teams before expanding to the west... with 12 stable teams, I think the AFL will be fine with accepting some owners outside of the Butera model. Additionally, the AFL being stable would be MORE appealing to NBA/NHL owners, increasing the likelihood of other, committed team owners.

4th&long wrote:
If they did make a change both AZ and Jax should be considered I would hope.


3) AZ would be allowed in with no problem; however, Bouchy might need to either publicly apologize or have Shahid Khan (the Jacksonville Jaguars' owner) buy a minority share of the Sharks to be let in. I think the Sharks left on bad terms, while the Rattlers left on overall good terms. In fact, the Rattlers staff, including Kevin Guy and Ron Shurts, complimented the AFL, and stated that the reason for departing was due to concerns about the league shutting down for a season in 2017. Of course, the travel schedule would have been a nightmare....

4th&long wrote:
If you hear otherwise, that would be a softening in their stance and be a MAJOR shift. Who knows they may buckle.


4) ) I think they will soften in their position after they have at least 12 stable teams. If they have a season of 12 teams that don't fold, then look for westward expansion and slow but increasing growth in the South and the Southwest... in fact, I would not be surprised if the only state in the Southwest/Four Corners region without an AFL team in 2026 is New Mexico.


Good Post AFLNerd

I'm not good with the quotes so I just inserted the numbers Confused

Concerning each point:
1) Actually the CIF does close by team schedules pretty much too at least for certain teams. Talk of AAL merging with NAL ? I hope that's just BS talk as I don't see that happening at all - the Richmond Rough Riders just bailed on NAL to go AAL in ugly fashion. AAL has a long way to go to be on a solid level.

2 & 4) Leonis wants to keep costs down and stick with the East coast for now. Talk of 12 teams could be well into the future. When they go west I would imagine they want the same type of owners they have on the East. So we'll see if they loosen up the ownership rules or not. As long as Butera rules - I think its unlikely. They want those wealthy well connected multi-franchise owners. But again - who knows.

3) Well Jax would be a close team for TB and AZ would not, though I think Travel cost is less an issue when gate receipts hit a certain point.

The cost of a national TV presence and covering failed franchises along with an expensive front office is a big expense being in the AFL. The single entity model may also be a big turn off. I think AZ, Jax and to a lesser extent Iowa are making a $$ killing now being in IFL/NAL vs AFL. The issue is keeping those leagues stable enough to allow the $$ to continue. IFL did amazing job rebounding from their issues this year. Next up is NAL, hopefully they do as well.
_________________
4th
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic Reply to topic    ArenaFan.com Forum Index -> AFL View previous topic :: View next topic  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group