|
Post by daytonadan on Oct 31, 2008 17:56:21 GMT -5
IFL attorneys have sent a Cease-And-Desist letter to LA Swashbucklers owner Thom Hager today.
Hager has several attorneys as sponsors and will handle the legal free-for-all pro bono out of principle.
Isn't it ironic, my friends, that Carolyn Shiver used to resort to cease-and-desists back in the NIFL days when the Intense and UIF broke off, and now the IFL is using legalities for an upstart new league.
The circle continues. I sigh in sadness.
|
|
|
Post by CF4L on Oct 31, 2008 18:07:16 GMT -5
as I said on IFF, this is pathetic.
the UIF folks jumped ship on the NIFL because they didnt' like how the NIFL was being ran and now the Swashbucklers (and others) are doing it to them and the IFL (UIF) people don't like it too much.
A bit hypocritical, no?
GET OVER YOURSELVES IFL PEOPLE!
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Oct 31, 2008 20:00:51 GMT -5
I don't blame the UIF, individual teams, and finally the Intense, for leaving the NIFL when they did. From 2005 and on the NIFL was an absolute mess thanks to corruption all the way from the top.
The new IFL may be taking legal steps, but it's nothing no other league, including the AF2, hasn't already done before. While I don't care for it, it's a long way off from the worst the NIFL ended up to be in the end when Shiver had full control.
|
|
|
Post by stormfootball on Oct 31, 2008 21:24:20 GMT -5
I say let em go. Ive always felt the same about players that arent happy with a team, their attitude can be contagious and bring alot of people with them. Wish them luck and say maybe it can work out in the future.......WILL SOMEONE JUST TAKE THE HIGH ROAD IN ONE OF THESE THINGS!!!
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Oct 31, 2008 21:46:39 GMT -5
I agree...just let 'em go. I doubt even the legal process will force them to stay anyway, and why have an entity in the league that doesn't want to be there? It's like a cancerous growth, get rid of it while you can. I think it's more of a posturing move (threat of legal action) myself, to prevent others from leaving who might have been considering it.
|
|
|
Post by CF4L on Oct 31, 2008 23:06:53 GMT -5
so they're bullying teams into staying?
that's a Carolyn Shiver tactic if I've ever seen one.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Oct 31, 2008 23:21:31 GMT -5
If a teams wants to leave, they leave (as long as no paperwork has been signed saying they can't). Some teams, such as Tennessee Valley, Peoria, and Lincoln, had to come up with new nicknames when the left the AF2 but they still left. I don't think anyone really thinks Louisiana will stay, this is more about keeping other teams from leaving. In the end this is a business and you protect your interests. Does anyone believe the IFL is alright with teams leaving before a game has been played, I don't think so either. Any league would take legal action under the same situation. This isn't a Shiver tactic, this is an AFL tactic as far as which league started stuff like this. Shiver tactics are way worse.
|
|
|
Post by CF4L on Oct 31, 2008 23:36:59 GMT -5
right, but it's very hypocritical of the IFL to file suit against Louisiana when the UIF/IFL and THEIR FANS cried foul when the NIFL did it to them.
I know there are a lot of UIF/IFL apologists on this board, but I'm calling it like I see it here. To say what is happening now between the (new) IFL and the Louisiana Swashbucklers is any different than the NIFL filing suit between teams leaving them is crazy.
In both instances, teams were leaving because they didn't like the direction of the league (for whatever reasons). Said leagues didn't like they were losing teams and are whining to the courts to stop the teams. Benizio will lose this battle if I had to bet and he'll be walking away with a lot of egg on his face.
(sidebar: The Lightning folded and the Capitols were a seperate organization from the Lightning. The fact that OPE owned the Lightning nickname (supposedly) is irrelevant.)
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Nov 1, 2008 0:19:21 GMT -5
Myself, I can't blame the IFL for filing suit since it is a business in the end and you do what you need to do to protect your interests (I think it's a futile move though). I don't blame the UIFA teams for departing the NIFL either. They almost left the year before, but balked and when things didn't change they ended up leaving the next year, although they really didn't want to, but Shiver wouldn't change and we saw how bad she really got. Is the IFL yearly costs too much for some teams to handle, I don't know since I haven't seen the official numbers. If they are, and they are unwilling to change that (unable is a different matter), then I can't really blame Louisiana for leaving. Trying to turn a profit in the minor leagues is a tough thing though and many owners have lost their shirts. I still believe that while this is a business in the end, most owners start off getting into it for the love of football. No one wants to lose money hand over fist though, but by the same token if you don't have money your willing to lose investing in minor league sports, then I wouldn't invest it as it most likely will fly out the window. If this is about egos, then it's just a shame. Benizio and the IFL will indeed lose this battle (IMHO) and have egg on their face. I just wish it could've worked out. I know you think, unlike myself, that there wasn't too much wrong with the NIFL before the UIFA teams departed and that things just spiraled out of control for the NIFL after that. Well, things were out of control in the NIFL way before the UIFA teams left and to blame the demise of the NIFL on that doesn't ring true. Shiver did the things she did herself and there's no one else to blame. If it ends up that there's a mass exodus of teams leaving the IFL, will that be the same situation? I don't think so. The IFL will not be bringing in teams held up by spit and bailing wire (although Josh might disagree) to make the league look bigger and better than it really is. The UIFA did an excellent job making sure all it's teams played each game and that personnel were paid...something the NIFL couldn't care less about. Doing that can be costly sometimes, so if that's the reason that league expenses might be high then I don't have a problem with that. If it's due to some other reason, then I do have a problem with it. This is all conjecture though, I'm sure next month we'll learn more. I just hope this wasn't just an ego thing.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Nov 1, 2008 0:24:50 GMT -5
(sidebar: The Lightning folded and the Capitols were a seperate organization from the Lightning. The fact that OPE owned the Lightning nickname (supposedly) is irrelevant.) Thanks for the correction, I thought they were the same organization (that was off the top of my head, I didn't go back and research it). Tennessee Valley and Peoria were actually separate entities as well since AF2 owned all rights to the Vipers and Pirates. The owners and most of the rest of those two teams were still the same though, just under a different name (but legally they aren't the same org's).
|
|
|
Post by afan on Nov 1, 2008 5:57:13 GMT -5
I think they should just let them go too - yes, you have to protect your interests, but you also have to be very aware of public perception - and filing this doesn't help (at least in some eyes) Make the teams still in the league sign something - quietly if necessary or possible, but just let them go - if the IFL truly believes the Swashbucklers can't make it outside the IFL, just sit back and watch what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Nov 8, 2008 17:52:34 GMT -5
Anyone heard any official news on this yet?
|
|