PDA

View Full Version : Bordow: Cards deserve some leeway


az643dp
May 4th, 2003, 06:37 AM
http://eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=4132

Cards deserve some leeway
By Scott Bordow, Tribune Columnist

In the case of the Cardinals vs. Arizona State, there seems to be one judgment in the court of public opinion.
The greedy !@&$#! Cardinals are sticking it to little ol' ASU.

Every e-mail and phone call I've received since the story broke has blasted the Bidwills.

One reader said they're acting like, “hogs at the trough.” Another wrote, “the latest shenanigans by the Arizona Cardinals are offensive, disgusting and preposterous.”

I have to admit, my first reaction was aimed in the same direction, if not with the same venom.

There go the Cardinals again, shooting themselves in the foot. It's a wonder they have any toes left. It's an easy conclusion to jump to. The Cardinals have had a kick me sign on their back since arriving in the Valley in 1988.

But their dispute with Arizona State is not so black-and-white. As proof, I offer just one question:

If the issues were exactly the same, and it was ASU suing the Cardinals, would there be such a rush to rip the university?

Of course not. But because it's the Cardinals, everyone assumes they're the bad guys.

The spat, if you haven't heard, involves corporate signage at Sun Devil Stadium. The Cardinals claim ASU made 31 new sponsorship deals in 1999 without getting their approval, thus breaching a 1994 contract that said both parties must approve any changes in signage and share in the revenue.

It does look unseemly that the Cardinals didn't ask for compensation — they're seeking $12 million to $21 million — until nine days after Maricopa County voters approved a $355 million stadium in November of 2000.

So, once you can leave them, you don't have to love them anymore, huh? The Cardinals get their pot of gold and all of a sudden they want money from ASU? How petty.

There's also no doubt that having the right to do something doesn't make it right. If the Cardinals win their case, ASU officials say athletic programs may have to be cut and jobs could be lost.

Have the Cardinals even considered the pain they could cause? In the haste to heave contempt at the Cardinals, though, one essential point has been forgotten:

A deal's a deal.

In a preliminary hearing last year, arbitrator Thomas *. Ryan sided with the Cardinals, saying there had been a breach of contract. Ryan's final decision is expected in late summer or early fall.

“They took revenues that should have been lawfully ours,” Cardinals vice president Michael Bidwill said Saturday. “All we're asking is for those back. We're not trying to harm anybody here. We're the ones who have been harmed here.”

ASU officials, though, act and sound like someone has robbed their piggy bank.

Athletic director Gene Smith launched a media offensive Friday, saying, among other things, that he was glad ex-Sun Devil Jake Plummer was no longer a Cardinal.

Then there was this quote from university general counsel Paul Ward: “There is a reason why the Cardinals are at the bottom of the NFL in ad revenue. I think it is the same reason the Cardinals are at the bottom of the NFL in attendance.”

The squabble is nasty enough without ASU's mouthpieces heating it up with angry, vengeful comments.

Look, I don't know who's right and who's wrong here. Or who's telling the truth and who's lying. ASU says it has only received $6 million from the Cardinals for the 15 seasons they've played at Sun Devil Stadium. The Cardinals say it's $31 million.

But a neutral arbitrator has ruled in the Cardinals' favor.

Shouldn't that give them some leeway with the judge, jury and executioners?

Shane
May 4th, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by az643dp
http://eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=4132

If the issues were exactly the same, and it was ASU suing the Cardinals, would there be such a rush to rip the university?

Of course not. But because it's the Cardinals, everyone assumes they're the bad guys.

Look, I don't know who's right and who's wrong here. Or who's telling the truth and who's lying. ASU says it has only received $6 million from the Cardinals for the 15 seasons they've played at Sun Devil Stadium. The Cardinals say it's $31 million.

But a neutral arbitrator has ruled in the Cardinals' favor.

Shouldn't that give them some leeway with the judge, jury and executioners?


These were the parts that stuck out to me that is exactly right if ASU was the one suing then all these same idiots who are complaining would applaude ASU!

And if ASU wants anyone to believe that they have only made 6 million bucks over the last 15 years they are smoking crack!

Krangthebrain
May 4th, 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Shane H
These were the parts that stuck out to me that is exactly right if ASU was the one suing then all these same idiots who are complaining would applaude ASU!

And if ASU wants anyone to believe that they have only made 6 million bucks over the last 15 years they are smoking crack!

6 million dollars? BOLOGNA! I was thinking the same thing Shane. ASU is wrong, and they are resorting to petty tactics to win in the public's eye. Sadly the Cards are losing this battle with ASU.

ajcardfan
May 4th, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Krangthebrain
6 million dollars? BOLOGNA! I was thinking the same thing Shane. ASU is wrong, and they are resorting to petty tactics to win in the public's eye. Sadly the Cards are losing this battle with ASU.

It is something of a shell game. Smith, on the radio Friday, said that they don't count all of the parking revenue because that doesn't go to the Athletic Department. So, there is no doubt that ASU has made more than 6 mil. The Athletic Department will bear the cost of any sort of penalty. IMO, the penalty is going to be very small, much smaller than 21 mil.

CardsRep03
May 4th, 2003, 04:55 PM
Bordow posed an interesting query: What would public opinion be if ASU were suing the Cardinals? Don't need a multiple choice on this one: Cardinals are damned if they do and damned if they don't. The Cardinals are either "money grubbing bastards" because they sue to get money owed them or they would be called "cheapskate" because they tried to "bilk money from those poor students at ASU while lining their pockets" Or, " the students are starving while Bidwill eats cake(or ice cream). :rolleyes:

WizardOfAz
May 4th, 2003, 08:58 PM
But a neutral arbitrator has ruled in the Cardinals' favor.

Houdini
May 4th, 2003, 09:54 PM
I think it's going to get ugly no matter who is right or wrong. Below is what Paola Boivin wrote about the hot topic:

At the heart of the debate is wording of a 1994 contract that says both parties must agree to changes regarding sponsor signs. ASU says the language pertained only to temporary signs.

That an arbitrator already has sided with the Cardinals suggests the team merits a few sympathy votes. Will it receive any? No way.

The timing of Michael Bidwill's decision, to begin legal action just nine days after county voters approved a $355 million publicly financed stadium, stinks. The fact that they don't seem the least bit sensitive to the reality that athletic jobs and programs will be cut in a department already in the red makes it worse.

The Cardinals come across as a thug stealing from the poor rather than a team feeling it was treated unfairly.

Shame on them. . . .

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0504boivin0504.html

Krangthebrain
May 4th, 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Houdini
I think it's going to get ugly no matter who is right or wrong. Below is what Paola Boivin wrote about the hot topic:

At the heart of the debate is wording of a 1994 contract that says both parties must agree to changes regarding sponsor signs. ASU says the language pertained only to temporary signs.

That an arbitrator already has sided with the Cardinals suggests the team merits a few sympathy votes. Will it receive any? No way.

The timing of Michael Bidwill's decision, to begin legal action just nine days after county voters approved a $355 million publicly financed stadium, stinks. The fact that they don't seem the least bit sensitive to the reality that athletic jobs and programs will be cut in a department already in the red makes it worse.

The Cardinals come across as a thug stealing from the poor rather than a team feeling it was treated unfairly.

Shame on them. . . .

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0504boivin0504.html

It's interesting that the Repugnant takes a very Pro-ASU slant to most of their articles. To me the only fact that matters:

a neutral arbitrator has ruled in the Cardinals' favor.

I really have soured on Gene Smith and his athletic department. He has really tried to use an emotional apeal to the citizens, and to me that makes ASU's position look weak. He has taken some petty shots at the Cardinals which to makes me question his integrity.

It also is a total joke that ASU ONLY made 6 million off the Cards. Even if the Athletic Dept. has only made 6 million, the University as a whole has made much more. This is a half truth by Gene Smith, and I as a student AND a consumer, have decided that I will not attend any ASU athletic events.

WizardOfAz
May 4th, 2003, 10:04 PM
All I know is John Gambadoro was 100% behind ASU on this one....that's all I need to know.

Shane
May 5th, 2003, 07:32 AM
Someone tell me why the Cardinals should be the least bit worried about ASU athletic dept. being in the red???

Thats ASUs problem and there mismanagement. Its not the Cards fault ASU renigged on a DEAL either!

Get every dime you can BILL!

JeffGollin
May 5th, 2003, 08:09 AM
Perception = Reality. ASU has more perceived credibility within the Valley than do the Cards because they've been here longer and have had more periods where they have consistently won.

The only thing that will change the faulty perception of the Cardinals is to do right by the fans over a long period of time and to also consistently win football games.

WizardOfAz
May 5th, 2003, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Shane H
Thats ASUs problem and there mismanagement.


Cardinals had a poor season last year by most any measure and they drew 7% more fans than they did in 2001.

ASU had thier best season in years and they showed a less than 1% increase at the gate last season.

Shane
May 5th, 2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by WizardOfAz
Cardinals had a poor season last year by most any measure and they drew 7% more fans than they did in 2001.

ASU had thier best season in years and they showed a less than 1% increase at the gate last season.

Once again why should this concern the Cards???

Maybe if ASU athletic dept is opertating in the red then like most businesses they need to cut jobs and athletic programs. Sounds smart to me!

WizardOfAz
May 5th, 2003, 09:25 AM
Posted as an insight indicating that the problems in the ASU Atjletic Department run slightly deeper than this situation iwth the Cardinals.