|
Post by BlitzinBandit on Aug 7, 2008 17:31:06 GMT -5
Yet not to many folks like the man...say what you want about the man at least he makes money doing this and believe it or not loves his team and fans he just doesn't get credit for it.
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Aug 11, 2008 18:23:12 GMT -5
a neat little tidbit type thing is the IFL Peoria Pirates, were absorbed into the af2(along with Lincoln) when the Orlando Predators(OPE) bought the league.
Then as fate would have it, the same Peoria Pirates, abandoned the af2 and were instrumental in the formation of United Indoor Football as they were a charter franchise. The Roughriders.
Perhaps one day real football will be played in Peoria once again if they can get rid of the deuche once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 14, 2008 12:14:39 GMT -5
What, so 500 people can show up to games again? I think Peoria pretty well made it clear they're not interested in indoor football.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Aug 14, 2008 12:28:12 GMT -5
Never say never. They started in indoor, went back to indoor, a third time would not be out of the norm for them.
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Aug 14, 2008 18:09:01 GMT -5
and why not ? The replacement Pirates attendance was way way way down from 2004 Pirates attendance. ha ha ... ;D Send them to Davy Jones locker. arrrrrrrr ....
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Aug 14, 2008 23:21:15 GMT -5
Yeah - that's correct - the Wild is a whole new entity. That's why I was wondering if the others were the same ownership - That would be very impressive. Each team that has come through Wichita (Warlords, Stealth, Aviators and Wild) would be (to me) considered different franchises. I'm just confused - not questioning. As far as I know there were no ties between the Stealth and the Aviators either - other than the same players. Well, I guess the IFL is defining a franchise differently than most of us since in the IFL Media Kit on the IFL site ( www.goifl.com, then click on Mediakit link) they list the Wild franchise as starting in 2000. So if that's the way they're going to do, I'll fall in line with that.
|
|
|
Post by superpicker on Aug 15, 2008 8:09:58 GMT -5
... and again why not ? If the second best Arena Football league can claim the Tennessee Vally Vipers are the same original team, then the BEST Indoor Football league can claim anything they want. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Bouncer_Texxx on Aug 15, 2008 9:56:19 GMT -5
we all know the AF2 is selling a "VCR"
when it's actually 2 beer boxes with bricks in them
|
|
|
Post by afan on Aug 15, 2008 10:18:42 GMT -5
Yeah - that's correct - the Wild is a whole new entity. That's why I was wondering if the others were the same ownership - That would be very impressive. Each team that has come through Wichita (Warlords, Stealth, Aviators and Wild) would be (to me) considered different franchises. I'm just confused - not questioning. As far as I know there were no ties between the Stealth and the Aviators either - other than the same players. Well, I guess the IFL is defining a franchise differently than most of us since in the IFL Media Kit on the IFL site ( www.goifl.com, then click on Mediakit link) they list the Wild franchise as starting in 2000. So if that's the way they're going to do, I'll fall in line with that. I'm still confused on what anyone is using to define a franchise. All the same staff and most of the players from the Aviators went to the Wild - probably some of the other stuff as well - Not jerseys - but who knows on everything else? I don't believe that Wink ever bought anything from the Aviators - the turf, etc ended up in Springfield. But the Wild as an organization were started in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 15, 2008 12:44:49 GMT -5
... and again why not ? If the second best Arena Football league can claim the Tennessee Vally Vipers are the same original team, then the BEST Indoor Football league can claim anything they want. Yep. The AF2 gave the Vipers (II) all the AF2 records that the Vipers (I) had, but they are not the same franchise. That franchise changed its name to the Raptors and later moved to Rock River. The AF2 can basically do what it wants with it's own teams and record keeping, but the Vipers (I) are still the Rock River Raptors. The Vipers (II) just have the Vipers (I) records as far as history in the AF2 goes. As far as a governing body goes for the entire indoor/arena sport (which there is none), the decision on historical records across the sport in this case would have the past records of the Vipers (I) with the Raptors. That would be my judgment as well. As for the Wichita franchise, I think it looks more impressive to put on a league press release that a team has been around since 2000, despite Ralph Adams of the APFL still having control of the dormant Aviator franchise. I'd have to check also on whether or not the AF2 keeps control of franchises within their league. I know they control the names of the teams, but do they control the actual franchises as well? If so, then they could very well be correct in declaring that the Vipers (II) are a continuation of the Vipers (I), and that when Owner Art Clarkson pulled the Vipers (I) out of the AF2, then he was actually creating a new team.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 15, 2008 13:28:42 GMT -5
... and again why not ? If the second best Arena Football league can claim the Tennessee Vally Vipers are the same original team, then the BEST Indoor Football league can claim anything they want. Yep. The AF2 gave the Vipers (II) all the AF2 records that the Vipers (I) had, but they are not the same franchise. That franchise changed its name to the Raptors and later moved to Rock River. The AF2 can basically do what it wants with it's own teams and record keeping, but the Vipers (I) are still the Rock River Raptors. The Vipers (II) just have the Vipers (I) records as far as history in the AF2 goes. As far as a governing body goes for the entire indoor/arena sport (which there is none), the decision on historical records across the sport in this case would have the past records of the Vipers (I) with the Raptors. That would be my judgment as well. As for the Wichita franchise, I think it looks more impressive to put on a league press release that a team has been around since 2000, despite Ralph Adams of the APFL still having control of the dormant Aviator franchise. I'd have to check also on whether or not the AF2 keeps control of franchises within their league. I know they control the names of the teams, but do they control the actual franchises as well? If so, then they could very well be correct in declaring that the Vipers (II) are a continuation of the Vipers (I), and that when Owner Art Clarkson pulled the Vipers (I) out of the AF2, then he was actually creating a new team. By AF2 standards, Clarkson was creating a new team. But by anyone else's standards, he really didn't. This is very much like the Browns/Ravens NFL setup. Yeah, the Browns moved to Baltimore, but the Ravens officially started in 1996. Jamal Lewis last year was the first Browns player to run for 1,000 yards since 1985, by official NFL count - so Cleveland keeps its football records. I don't disagree for a second with the AF2 doing the same in both Peoria and Huntsville.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 16, 2008 0:59:45 GMT -5
The AF2 gave the Vipers (II) all the AF2 records that the Vipers (I) had, but they are not the same franchise. That franchise changed its name to the Raptors and later moved to Rock River. The AF2 can basically do what it wants with it's own teams and record keeping, but the Vipers (I) are still the Rock River Raptors. The Vipers (II) just have the Vipers (I) records as far as history in the AF2 goes. As far as a governing body goes for the entire indoor/arena sport (which there is none), the decision on historical records across the sport in this case would have the past records of the Vipers (I) with the Raptors. That would be my judgment as well. As for the Wichita franchise, I think it looks more impressive to put on a league press release that a team has been around since 2000, despite Ralph Adams of the APFL still having control of the dormant Aviator franchise. I'd have to check also on whether or not the AF2 keeps control of franchises within their league. I know they control the names of the teams, but do they control the actual franchises as well? If so, then they could very well be correct in declaring that the Vipers (II) are a continuation of the Vipers (I), and that when Owner Art Clarkson pulled the Vipers (I) out of the AF2, then he was actually creating a new team. By AF2 standards, Clarkson was creating a new team. But by anyone else's standards, he really didn't. This is very much like the Browns/Ravens NFL setup. Yeah, the Browns moved to Baltimore, but the Ravens officially started in 1996. Jamal Lewis last year was the first Browns player to run for 1,000 yards since 1985, by official NFL count - so Cleveland keeps its football records. I don't disagree for a second with the AF2 doing the same in both Peoria and Huntsville. Agreed. The AF2 can do what it wants with its records, but if there was an overall governing body over all the leagues, they would officially rule that the Rock River Raptors are still the current TV Vipers (I) and I would agree. If an owner moves his team between leagues, it's still his team, unless he agrees with the league (as Modell did) to leave the history behind. Historically, the new Vipers are a new team, to all except the AF2...and the Wild have been around 2 years, to all except the IFL.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 16, 2008 19:28:19 GMT -5
Well, that was Modell agreeing with the judge, not the league.
|
|
|
Post by Banana Cat on Aug 17, 2008 11:57:34 GMT -5
Same thing in the end.
|
|
|
Post by exit322 on Aug 17, 2008 19:28:28 GMT -5
It had the same net effect, but it was hardly the same thing. The AF2 ensured that TV/PEO would keep their old records. The NFL couldn't have cared less (think Colts, Baltimore), but Cleveland and its fans forced the issue. Then built another stadium three years later anyways. Oh well, we didn't like Modell before, so it worked out.
|
|