|
Post by exit322 on Apr 25, 2009 15:03:39 GMT -5
So the Storm, a team that can handle such excessive financial hardship if they have to, are getting reamed because they took a calculated financial risk whose failure wouldn't have killed them.
Really.
Why didn't the IFL confirm all teams had insurance before the season if this was so important? This is just like the "league" voting to give the Greyhounds a forfeit halfway through the 2002 season when the Hounds' bus got into a wreck, canceling their first game in Winston-Salem two months prior. The only difference...who does this exactly benefit (the Landsharks, CS' team, and Hounds, were both undefeated at that point).
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Apr 25, 2009 18:41:09 GMT -5
this isn't Benezio's doing, as some on here think. Reality check time. The commisioners office is supposed to make sure all the T's are dotted and I's are crossed BEFORE the season begins. The PERFECT example was Mr. Crows, handling of Dayton, during the U I F inaugural season. The Warbirds did NOT have their act together in time and it was comply or play elsewhere BEFORE the season began, not week 7 ferchrissakes. Also, are these penalties suchas deducting victories and roster reductions and forfeiture of home games part of the IFL owners bylaws or rulebook ? Or are they just making s#it up as they go along ? And sure, the owners voted, but so what. Does that mean the owners voted with: A. the Storms best interest at heart ? B. the leagues best interest at heart ? C. their own best interest at heart ? This appears to be as crooked as a dogs hind leg.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Apr 25, 2009 18:43:34 GMT -5
We all thought the IFL was going to be better. When it was first announced, I was definitely on that board...but that changed quickly when we saw time and time again a half-assed production and a very poor attempt.
Lou's right - the UIF was railed on for their decision, but the Dayton decision turned out to be the right decision. And it was done before the season, if only one day to that fact.
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Apr 26, 2009 19:09:05 GMT -5
thanks Josh ... you know,looking back on the UIF years, they were premier. I am happy that I never felt the urge to complain about United Indoor Football or about the way Mr. Crow, handled United Indoor Football. I took my share of heat for it, but in truth, I was being quite honest. I loved UIF for what it was. I was hoping that problems which appeared to be minor in scope about IFL, could certainly be worked out in a season or two. And while I never felt quite as warm and fuzzy as before, I still realise it is what it is. But now you all know that I too have reached my boiling point .
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Apr 26, 2009 20:29:45 GMT -5
The last word I'll have on the subject - since I've got two weeks before the FARE part of the CPA Exam and I need to focus on that - if this were all on the up-and-up, the IFL would come out and explain in detail what the Storm did to receive the sport's harshest-ever penalty.
They aren't. Something's not right. And that's sad.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Apr 26, 2009 20:38:16 GMT -5
especially since the Storm, to their credit has been brutally open and honest (after the fact) with their fans and local media.
|
|