|
Post by Banana Cat on Oct 18, 2011 18:23:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Oct 18, 2011 23:24:28 GMT -5
Everett, Tri-Cities, Wyoming, and Colorado have been mentioned as being in a division together.
If true, that would mean 4 divisions of 4 teams most likely.
|
|
|
Post by storm2010 on Oct 18, 2011 23:47:33 GMT -5
Everett IS the Seattle franchise re-located. It is the exact same as LaCrosse moving to Cedar Rapids..
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 19, 2011 0:47:51 GMT -5
Everett IS the Seattle franchise re-located. It is the exact same as LaCrosse moving to Cedar Rapids.. No, these two situations are akin to when the Cleveland Browns relocated and became the Baltimore Ravens (different franchises). For example, the owners of La Crosse were still trying to sell the franchise, while starting a new one in Cedar Rapids (but using resources of Spartans for the new team).
|
|
|
Post by storm2010 on Oct 19, 2011 13:12:00 GMT -5
No, both franchises relocated to new cities. Their 2011 roster stays in tact and moves with them. They did not have to apply for new memberships. They simply had to get the other directors to approve the move. If LaCrosse had gotten another team it would have been considered a new expansion team. If Seattle/Kent gets another team, it will be treated as a new expansion team.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Oct 19, 2011 15:16:34 GMT -5
end of the day who gives a spit...
it's a wash... and this is indoor football.
All it did was add extra costs to the Storm's travel budget if we play either team.
|
|
|
Post by Micah008 on Oct 19, 2011 17:52:43 GMT -5
I agree with storm2010 on this one. These teams may be choosing to *market* themselves as new franchises, but in reality they are just the Spartans and Timberwolves in new cities with new names. They said they were trying to sell the Spartans, and they said they would officially announce what happened there, but there was never anything real that happened in La Crosse, and there really was nothing left to sell in La Crosse anyway other than the name. Proof of the roster staying intact with the new team... - On October 1st the Titans made a trade with the Extreme. The player (Rivera) that they traded away was never on the Titans roster according to the transactions, only on the Spartans. goifl.com/players/transactions/index.html?article_id=3641- When the Titans were first announced, multiple Spartans players were in Cedar Rapids for the announcement, wearing Titans gear. But, at the time they were not on the Titans roster (some still are not to this day). So, if they really were still on the Spartans roster this would have been considered player tampering like what happened between the Danger and Spartans a year ago. - When other teams have called it quits they dropped all of their players. (Wenatchee, Arizona, etc) but this never happened with the Spartans.
|
|
|
Post by storm2010 on Oct 19, 2011 18:23:52 GMT -5
end of the day who gives a spit... it's a wash... and this is indoor football. All it did was add extra costs to the Storm's travel budget if we play either team. Agreed. Guarentee they send the Storm on some long trips this year. Driving through the cities of much closer opponents. Where is Bob Scott when you need him!!
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Oct 19, 2011 18:43:50 GMT -5
Concerning the ownerships of Spartans/Titans and Timberwolves/Raptors:
Totally agree on them being moved organizations. However, just like when the Browns became the Ravens, the Browns records stayed in Cleveland and the Ravens org was totally the same but expansion in "name only." If (big if, like little chance if) the Spartans and Timberwolves do come back they will be expansion teams, but with the Spartans and Timberwolves records. If the Raptors and Titans are marketing themselves as separate, then they are since it is the "owners" declaring this. When indoor teams joined the AF2 they had to sell ownership of their name and likeness to the AFL. If they went back to indoor, they either had to rename themselves or buy back ownership of their name and likeness. It comes down to ownership. The ownerships of these two teams are declaring them as separate and have the ability to bring the other two franchises back if they so choose since they own their rights.
Like BT says, it doesn't really matter, but this site is a stickler for these things, so it's worth discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Micah008 on Oct 19, 2011 19:39:14 GMT -5
That makes me feel even worse about ever getting Indoor Football back in La Crosse again. If they still "own" rights to the market, but are choosing not to put a team here, then there is no chance. No one is going to buy it from them, since all they are buying is the name and rights to be in the IFL. If I was going to start a team I would rather pick a new name anyway for a fresh start.
I agree it doesn't matter much anyway... no one is coming back here for a while. The first 3 times Indoor Football were tried it lasted 2 years or less... too many bridges burned at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Oct 19, 2011 23:30:43 GMT -5
That makes me feel even worse about ever getting Indoor Football back in La Crosse again. If they still "own" rights to the market, but are choosing not to put a team here, then there is no chance. No one is going to buy it from them, since all they are buying is the name and rights to be in the IFL. If I was going to start a team I would rather pick a new name anyway for a fresh start. I agree it doesn't matter much anyway... no one is coming back here for a while. The first 3 times Indoor Football were tried it lasted 2 years or less... too many bridges burned at this point. They may own the IFL rights, but another league could step in any time (as long as there's no exclusive arena agreement in place, which since they are technically defunct shouldn't be the case). The CIFL could be an option since it's their region. The APFL could even be an option (they just added a team from Cheyenne, Wyoming).
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Oct 25, 2011 21:07:10 GMT -5
Updated first post with the FINAL 2012 alignment and participating teams.
|
|