Post by Banana Cat on Oct 18, 2010 15:22:25 GMT -5
I didn't want to put this out in the public when I heard it (I prefer to wait for official news releases), but since Jerry Hewitt did it in his column at OSC today here it is (plus the teaser):
www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=4103904
www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=4104556
www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=4103904
Over a Cup of Coffee
by Jerry Hewitt
October 16, 2010
Since the original Arena Football League fell into bankruptcy, followed by the folding of its official minor league, arenafootball2, the reemergence of the new AFL has resulted in an uneasy truce with indoor football. The new AFL has been concentrating on large markets while the indoor leagues felt satisfied to continue to develop the more midsize cities. I thought this was working pretty well as for the first time in a long time, the indoor leagues didn't have the AFL/af2 trying to grab up markets and fighting a turf war with them. That uneasy truce may be close to ending.
I have no problem when leagues merge as the end result normally is a stronger and better organization, and I normally have no problem with an indoor team moving to the AFL or vice versa, but when I hear that one indoor league may be trying to sell out to the AFL so they can use it to relaunch af2, I question the wisdom.
I thought the old af2 model was better than anything any indoor league had offered in some ways and still do believe that to a degree, but the fact of the matter was that it was just too expensive. With the money removed from the model that went for patent rights to the AFL, maybe a new af2 will be less costly than the previous version, but I still suspect teams might find it more expensive than any of the current leagues, including the IFL.
If what I hear is true, I have to believe it comes down to two things: ego and money. Some of those involved with the league mentioned thinking they can pound their chest a little harder if they were associated with the AFL. I also believe there is a profit to be made for some in this transaction and I think maybe turning that profit is the biggest motivator.
I try to always look at how something benefits the sport, which means in part, examining if any move makes teams more stable. This doesn't, it will only add big dollars to teams budgets that already struggle to find black ink.
Let's say you are a fan of Team X in this league and already know ownership struggles to keep the team going. How would an increased budget help that cause? I know that some will argue that being a part of the AFL, even at a second tier would improve attendance, but I dare anyone to show me proof of that. Old af2 attendance figures don't present a valid argument. Sorry, but they don't.
And this is ignoring that fact that not all the arenas in any indoor league can support the Arena game's net system. If this deal goes through, some teams are once again simply going to be tossed aside, much as they were when af2 gained control of the original Indoor Football League in 2000. I can't help but think back to the original Indoor Football League which was purchased by the AFL's Orlando Predators. Their first step was to pick and choose what teams they wanted in the af2 and just dump the majority. It was some of those markets such as Billings, Sioux Falls, and Sioux City that were cast aside that gave the new NIFL a strong start. I believe the motivation for the AFL at that time was to kill off the indoor version, a move that back fired and ended up giving indoor an even stronger position in the scheme of things.
If the AFL is out to grab up some indoor league, or perhaps a combination of leagues, to once again try to gain a foothold in midsized markets I see this only as an ego trip by the AFL leadership and another avenue to pad their pockets. The other side of this ego trip is feeling that Arenaball should be the only version of the 50 yard type. That in my opinion, has long been the misguided thinking of those at the top of the Arena sport.
I am hoping that what I heard is just a wild rumor and that if the AFL is bound and determined to reinvent the af2 they do it the old fashioned way: build it and not at the expense of tearing down any current indoor leagues.
"The vision we had at the beginning, what drew me to be involved and build it, is not the direction it is heading. It was time to go," said Robert Winfrey, former SIFL Director of Operations, on why he stepped down from the league.
Most will be sorry that Robert has left the SIFL as he was one of the good guys, one of those that truly cared about the sport and tried to make a difference. We will miss you, Robert!
by Jerry Hewitt
October 16, 2010
Since the original Arena Football League fell into bankruptcy, followed by the folding of its official minor league, arenafootball2, the reemergence of the new AFL has resulted in an uneasy truce with indoor football. The new AFL has been concentrating on large markets while the indoor leagues felt satisfied to continue to develop the more midsize cities. I thought this was working pretty well as for the first time in a long time, the indoor leagues didn't have the AFL/af2 trying to grab up markets and fighting a turf war with them. That uneasy truce may be close to ending.
I have no problem when leagues merge as the end result normally is a stronger and better organization, and I normally have no problem with an indoor team moving to the AFL or vice versa, but when I hear that one indoor league may be trying to sell out to the AFL so they can use it to relaunch af2, I question the wisdom.
I thought the old af2 model was better than anything any indoor league had offered in some ways and still do believe that to a degree, but the fact of the matter was that it was just too expensive. With the money removed from the model that went for patent rights to the AFL, maybe a new af2 will be less costly than the previous version, but I still suspect teams might find it more expensive than any of the current leagues, including the IFL.
If what I hear is true, I have to believe it comes down to two things: ego and money. Some of those involved with the league mentioned thinking they can pound their chest a little harder if they were associated with the AFL. I also believe there is a profit to be made for some in this transaction and I think maybe turning that profit is the biggest motivator.
I try to always look at how something benefits the sport, which means in part, examining if any move makes teams more stable. This doesn't, it will only add big dollars to teams budgets that already struggle to find black ink.
Let's say you are a fan of Team X in this league and already know ownership struggles to keep the team going. How would an increased budget help that cause? I know that some will argue that being a part of the AFL, even at a second tier would improve attendance, but I dare anyone to show me proof of that. Old af2 attendance figures don't present a valid argument. Sorry, but they don't.
And this is ignoring that fact that not all the arenas in any indoor league can support the Arena game's net system. If this deal goes through, some teams are once again simply going to be tossed aside, much as they were when af2 gained control of the original Indoor Football League in 2000. I can't help but think back to the original Indoor Football League which was purchased by the AFL's Orlando Predators. Their first step was to pick and choose what teams they wanted in the af2 and just dump the majority. It was some of those markets such as Billings, Sioux Falls, and Sioux City that were cast aside that gave the new NIFL a strong start. I believe the motivation for the AFL at that time was to kill off the indoor version, a move that back fired and ended up giving indoor an even stronger position in the scheme of things.
If the AFL is out to grab up some indoor league, or perhaps a combination of leagues, to once again try to gain a foothold in midsized markets I see this only as an ego trip by the AFL leadership and another avenue to pad their pockets. The other side of this ego trip is feeling that Arenaball should be the only version of the 50 yard type. That in my opinion, has long been the misguided thinking of those at the top of the Arena sport.
I am hoping that what I heard is just a wild rumor and that if the AFL is bound and determined to reinvent the af2 they do it the old fashioned way: build it and not at the expense of tearing down any current indoor leagues.
"The vision we had at the beginning, what drew me to be involved and build it, is not the direction it is heading. It was time to go," said Robert Winfrey, former SIFL Director of Operations, on why he stepped down from the league.
Most will be sorry that Robert has left the SIFL as he was one of the good guys, one of those that truly cared about the sport and tried to make a difference. We will miss you, Robert!
www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=4104556
Over a Cup of Coffee
by Jerry Hewitt
October 18, 2010
In Saturday's Coffee, we explained a scenario in which one or more indoor football leagues might become the next edition of arenafootball2, the Arena Football League's official minor league. Yesterday I had someone from inside one of the leagues involved explain more of the details.
The basic story is that the Southern Indoor Football League is dealing on two fronts: first, acquiring the American Indoor Football Association's East Division and at the same time trying to broker a deal with the AFL to become the next af2. I don't want to get a head of things, so first some history on the SIFL itself and its immediate plans for the AIFA East.
Thom Hager started the SIFL as a regional Texas-based alternative to the more expensive Indoor Football League. The teams which belong to the SIFL have had no say as to which ownerships were brought into the league as Mr. Hager, I'm told, made those decisions. The teams also have had little to no say in their destiny since it was Mr. Hager's league and his to do with as he wanted, even selling it without the member teams input and it appears that is exactly what has happened. Teams in the AIFA East can relate to their plight.
Hager informed the teams and SIFL staff at the recent SIFL league meetings that he had sold the league to an attorney out of New Jersey, and this attorney is now brokering the deals mentioned. Now I'm also told that new SIFL Commissioner Gary Tufford and this New Jersey attorney are the ones behind the move, their intent since Tufford was tabbed to lead the SIFL.
To further the story, I'm told Columbus and Albany were promised teams closer to them for 2011 and were told negotiations were under way with Augusta, Macon, Rome, Savannah and Mobile. When teams recently asked how that was going, they were told Commissioner Tufford was close to closing deals with Macon, Savannah and Rome, but in reality Tufford may not have even seriously looked at those markets and instead was spending the majority of his time trying to get the AIFA East out from under John Morris. The league went so far as to issue a press release stating that Rome would not get an SIFL team.
None of these moves fit into what Hager promised fans from the start. The SIFL was supposed to be a regional league, kept small by design in order to control travel costs, so that teams weren't burdened with large budgets and fans could easily follow their teams on the road. I have to question how Harrisburg and Erie of the AIFA might fit into a travel-friendly schedule in the SIFL. I might also question how adding AIFA teams benefits Augusta and Columbus who appear now to have drives of over eight hours to most of their away games.
Recently I asked all the leagues for a quote on what they were doing to further stabilize their leagues. Commissioner Tufford replied, "The SIFL has bolstered its regional footprint to include additional markets within defined areas. In order to implement growth that makes sense it is necessary to build bridges across those areas that reach playing partners. The long term affect on teams is reduced travel and reduced bottom line costs. With the addition of more teams the reality of divisional play is more likely."
I'm guessing now that "defined areas" include those outside the current SIFL regional footprint. Heading towards the 2011 season I can not see where any actions by the SIFL now point to anything but increased operating costs to teams and increased travel, probably both in the short and long terms. I can certainly understand why teams in the SIFL have reason to be concerned.
I have always had the upmost respect for Hager. While with the National Indoor Football League, he was one owner whom I could count on to make sure everything regarding his team, the Louisiana Swashbucklers, was done right. It's difficult for back room private dealings such as these not to leave a very sour taste in my mouth. He most likely had good intentions when he started the SIFL, and he surrounded himself with a league staff that shared the original dream, but it appears he ignored their advice on a number of occasions that led to trouble. I'm told his staff warned him of last year's Houston debacle and Greenville being a problem as well, yet he ignored those warnings. Even though I have had reports of Hager telling others he was making big money off his team I'm guessing the SIFL has financially and even emotionally drained him to the point that he badly wanted to get out.
As I speculated Saturday, I believe the AFL hopes to destroy all indoor football competition, and my source agrees that part of the goal of any new af2, if that's what it ends up being called, is taking down the Indoor Football League and possibly consuming the Continental Indoor Football League and UIFL along the way. In my opinion, Jerry Kurz, the AFL Commissioner who refers to the indoor leagues as "ankle biters," has long felt the indoor football leagues were trespassing on AFL turf, keeping Arena football out of markets he'd love to have.
The big question might be if this new SIFL or af2 could take down the CIFL, IFL and/or UIFL. It may be unlikely, and their attempts to do so may end in further disaster and more spoiled markets. I'm concerned that Gary Tufford and friends may very well be on the way to destroying yet another league. He has two failures, the AIFL and WIFL, to his credit already.
Let's look at the plan I'm told Tufford and his partner have laid out for the SIFL over the next two seasons. First I'm told by another source that Thom Hager has been heard to have told others he has lost $90,000 over the first two years. I've also heard that the SIFL has not collected any fees, or maybe just partial fees, from new teams coming on board for 2011. Tufford, according to my sources, says he has successfully taken away the AIFA East from owners Mike Mink and John Morris and all that's left is to announce it. Those moves set the stage for what Tufford laid out at the recent SIFL league meetings. His plan calls for two Directors of Operation, one for the South and one for the East. There will also be two Directors of Officials set up the same way, a Director of Communications and another position, filled by his son, to handle player transactions. In all, his plan calls for eight or nine at the league level.
If it's true that Hager has lost money on the league and also true that little or no money has been collected from franchise fees, how can the SIFL afford the increase in personnel? That is the first question. The second challenge is to bring the SIFL's rules closer to those of the AFL for the 2011 season, with nets required for 2012 and the AFL governing or overseeing the league, and no doubt being paid to do so. I have no problem with the number of people at the league level, but this appears to be overkill at the least. My problem is this league is too small and can not afford this number of paid employees, nor can teams afford any large increases in fees to cover this unneeded luxury. Teams will also have to purchase the net systems, and more than a few will probably have to buy new turf to conform to AFL standards. Teams should start seeing the increase in operating budgets quickly as they may be under the AFL umbrella during the 2011 season. If teams thought the IFL was expensive, wait until they see their new budgets.
I find it difficult to see how any of this plan makes sense or will work. I can easily see the SIFL burying itself in debt and possibly leaving employees unpaid at some point, which I'm told already happened this past season. According to my source, league employees finally received at least part of what was owed at the league meetings. The SIFL was built to be a smaller regional league, but apparently its model has failed. Whatever the case, it was designed to operate with a minimum of personnel. Smaller leagues can not afford large league staffs, and six-figure expenditures for additional turf and equipment are not in the budgets of any existing teams.
There are, or perhaps were, those within the SIFL who wanted to make a difference, who wanted to do things right so that the SIFL could be pointed at as being the best indoor football league in the country for its teams and their fans, but once again we find one person at the top destroying it all. Carolyn Shiver, NIFL founder and destroyer, would be so proud that others have followed in her footsteps.
by Jerry Hewitt
October 18, 2010
In Saturday's Coffee, we explained a scenario in which one or more indoor football leagues might become the next edition of arenafootball2, the Arena Football League's official minor league. Yesterday I had someone from inside one of the leagues involved explain more of the details.
The basic story is that the Southern Indoor Football League is dealing on two fronts: first, acquiring the American Indoor Football Association's East Division and at the same time trying to broker a deal with the AFL to become the next af2. I don't want to get a head of things, so first some history on the SIFL itself and its immediate plans for the AIFA East.
Thom Hager started the SIFL as a regional Texas-based alternative to the more expensive Indoor Football League. The teams which belong to the SIFL have had no say as to which ownerships were brought into the league as Mr. Hager, I'm told, made those decisions. The teams also have had little to no say in their destiny since it was Mr. Hager's league and his to do with as he wanted, even selling it without the member teams input and it appears that is exactly what has happened. Teams in the AIFA East can relate to their plight.
Hager informed the teams and SIFL staff at the recent SIFL league meetings that he had sold the league to an attorney out of New Jersey, and this attorney is now brokering the deals mentioned. Now I'm also told that new SIFL Commissioner Gary Tufford and this New Jersey attorney are the ones behind the move, their intent since Tufford was tabbed to lead the SIFL.
To further the story, I'm told Columbus and Albany were promised teams closer to them for 2011 and were told negotiations were under way with Augusta, Macon, Rome, Savannah and Mobile. When teams recently asked how that was going, they were told Commissioner Tufford was close to closing deals with Macon, Savannah and Rome, but in reality Tufford may not have even seriously looked at those markets and instead was spending the majority of his time trying to get the AIFA East out from under John Morris. The league went so far as to issue a press release stating that Rome would not get an SIFL team.
None of these moves fit into what Hager promised fans from the start. The SIFL was supposed to be a regional league, kept small by design in order to control travel costs, so that teams weren't burdened with large budgets and fans could easily follow their teams on the road. I have to question how Harrisburg and Erie of the AIFA might fit into a travel-friendly schedule in the SIFL. I might also question how adding AIFA teams benefits Augusta and Columbus who appear now to have drives of over eight hours to most of their away games.
Recently I asked all the leagues for a quote on what they were doing to further stabilize their leagues. Commissioner Tufford replied, "The SIFL has bolstered its regional footprint to include additional markets within defined areas. In order to implement growth that makes sense it is necessary to build bridges across those areas that reach playing partners. The long term affect on teams is reduced travel and reduced bottom line costs. With the addition of more teams the reality of divisional play is more likely."
I'm guessing now that "defined areas" include those outside the current SIFL regional footprint. Heading towards the 2011 season I can not see where any actions by the SIFL now point to anything but increased operating costs to teams and increased travel, probably both in the short and long terms. I can certainly understand why teams in the SIFL have reason to be concerned.
I have always had the upmost respect for Hager. While with the National Indoor Football League, he was one owner whom I could count on to make sure everything regarding his team, the Louisiana Swashbucklers, was done right. It's difficult for back room private dealings such as these not to leave a very sour taste in my mouth. He most likely had good intentions when he started the SIFL, and he surrounded himself with a league staff that shared the original dream, but it appears he ignored their advice on a number of occasions that led to trouble. I'm told his staff warned him of last year's Houston debacle and Greenville being a problem as well, yet he ignored those warnings. Even though I have had reports of Hager telling others he was making big money off his team I'm guessing the SIFL has financially and even emotionally drained him to the point that he badly wanted to get out.
As I speculated Saturday, I believe the AFL hopes to destroy all indoor football competition, and my source agrees that part of the goal of any new af2, if that's what it ends up being called, is taking down the Indoor Football League and possibly consuming the Continental Indoor Football League and UIFL along the way. In my opinion, Jerry Kurz, the AFL Commissioner who refers to the indoor leagues as "ankle biters," has long felt the indoor football leagues were trespassing on AFL turf, keeping Arena football out of markets he'd love to have.
The big question might be if this new SIFL or af2 could take down the CIFL, IFL and/or UIFL. It may be unlikely, and their attempts to do so may end in further disaster and more spoiled markets. I'm concerned that Gary Tufford and friends may very well be on the way to destroying yet another league. He has two failures, the AIFL and WIFL, to his credit already.
Let's look at the plan I'm told Tufford and his partner have laid out for the SIFL over the next two seasons. First I'm told by another source that Thom Hager has been heard to have told others he has lost $90,000 over the first two years. I've also heard that the SIFL has not collected any fees, or maybe just partial fees, from new teams coming on board for 2011. Tufford, according to my sources, says he has successfully taken away the AIFA East from owners Mike Mink and John Morris and all that's left is to announce it. Those moves set the stage for what Tufford laid out at the recent SIFL league meetings. His plan calls for two Directors of Operation, one for the South and one for the East. There will also be two Directors of Officials set up the same way, a Director of Communications and another position, filled by his son, to handle player transactions. In all, his plan calls for eight or nine at the league level.
If it's true that Hager has lost money on the league and also true that little or no money has been collected from franchise fees, how can the SIFL afford the increase in personnel? That is the first question. The second challenge is to bring the SIFL's rules closer to those of the AFL for the 2011 season, with nets required for 2012 and the AFL governing or overseeing the league, and no doubt being paid to do so. I have no problem with the number of people at the league level, but this appears to be overkill at the least. My problem is this league is too small and can not afford this number of paid employees, nor can teams afford any large increases in fees to cover this unneeded luxury. Teams will also have to purchase the net systems, and more than a few will probably have to buy new turf to conform to AFL standards. Teams should start seeing the increase in operating budgets quickly as they may be under the AFL umbrella during the 2011 season. If teams thought the IFL was expensive, wait until they see their new budgets.
I find it difficult to see how any of this plan makes sense or will work. I can easily see the SIFL burying itself in debt and possibly leaving employees unpaid at some point, which I'm told already happened this past season. According to my source, league employees finally received at least part of what was owed at the league meetings. The SIFL was built to be a smaller regional league, but apparently its model has failed. Whatever the case, it was designed to operate with a minimum of personnel. Smaller leagues can not afford large league staffs, and six-figure expenditures for additional turf and equipment are not in the budgets of any existing teams.
There are, or perhaps were, those within the SIFL who wanted to make a difference, who wanted to do things right so that the SIFL could be pointed at as being the best indoor football league in the country for its teams and their fans, but once again we find one person at the top destroying it all. Carolyn Shiver, NIFL founder and destroyer, would be so proud that others have followed in her footsteps.