Momentum is gaining against the Cardinals

[Lefty]

I wonder if there is any groups for the Cardinals?http://insiders1.ezboard.com/fdevilsdigestfrm1.showMessage?topicID=4013.topic

 

[40yearfan]

One of the posters said Goyette on 550 KOY was more than fair. No kidding. He's the biggest Cardinal hater in town.

 

[Renz]

Who cares? Nothing they do is going to influence the outcome of the case. If those lemmings at RACD want to blindly support ASU, regardless of the specifics of the actual case, they are just peeing into the wind.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I love this post....the guy basically almost says the Cards are right.





Malph
Registered User
Posts: 64
(5/16/03 6:51:01 am)
Reply
I listened
Here are my comments -

I thought that Brant came across as very knowledgeable and very likeable. I especially liked his comments about taking the high road, having fans visit the website to review the documents for themselves, his comments that this are "Residents" against Cards demands, not just "ASU fans" against Cards demands.

Having said that, I think we need to come up with a more effective response to what the second caller alluded to, which was basically the point of "contractually, aren't the Cardinals in the right?".

Brant mentioned a reference to a document on their website - I looked and couldn't find it, and then he quoted a line from the arbitrator that said that the wording of the contract is ambiguous. However, this same arbitrator ruled against ASU so I'm not sure of the significance of that that quote.

I think it would be better if we had an arsenal of comebacks. Since I don't have all the facts and just off the top of my head, something like -

Yes, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Cardinals, however:

1. the ABOR forced ASU into this contract.
2. ASU went to the Cards twice to change the contract, the Cards, as always, refused.
3. The stadium needed improvements and ASU, being the great guys they are, wanted private funds to pay for it.
4. (Another huge point we need to focus on) The Cardinals, even if they had ALL of the signage, have consistently been unable to find sponsers because of their pathetic public relations and attendance problems.
5. ASU, because of the ambiguous wording in the contract and the Cards inability to acquire advertisers, went out and sold their own signs.
6. The improvements made to the stadium also benefitted the Cards!!!!!
7.(this point was made on the radio) for the Cards to claim damages on the level of Denver, Buffalo and GBay just shows how low these guys will go.
8. Finally (this point was also mentioned), the Bidwills have their stadium, you've had enough problems with PR, just take your money and be happy.

I hate to admit it, but when someone says "hey the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Cards, ASU is in the wrong here" they have some validated to that point, so we need to focus more on countering that point, IMHO.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too critical, just a few comments that might help our cause in the future. Keep up the great work.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

ASU who cares?

Colleges/Universities. Evil. Money grubbing. Pointless.

Go Cards! Stop putting this cr*p on the message board. If I want to hear about ASU then I will go to that message board.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
I love this post....the guy basically almost says the Cards are right.





Malph
Registered User
Posts: 64
(5/16/03 6:51:01 am)
Reply
I listened
Here are my comments -

I thought that Brant came across as very knowledgeable and very likeable. I especially liked his comments about taking the high road, having fans visit the website to review the documents for themselves, his comments that this are "Residents" against Cards demands, not just "ASU fans" against Cards demands.

Having said that, I think we need to come up with a more effective response to what the second caller alluded to, which was basically the point of "contractually, aren't the Cardinals in the right?".

Brant mentioned a reference to a document on their website - I looked and couldn't find it, and then he quoted a line from the arbitrator that said that the wording of the contract is ambiguous. However, this same arbitrator ruled against ASU so I'm not sure of the significance of that that quote.

I think it would be better if we had an arsenal of comebacks. Since I don't have all the facts and just off the top of my head, something like -

Yes, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Cardinals, however:

1. the ABOR forced ASU into this contract.
2. ASU went to the Cards twice to change the contract, the Cards, as always, refused.
3. The stadium needed improvements and ASU, being the great guys they are, wanted private funds to pay for it.
4. (Another huge point we need to focus on) The Cardinals, even if they had ALL of the signage, have consistently been unable to find sponsers because of their pathetic public relations and attendance problems.
5. ASU, because of the ambiguous wording in the contract and the Cards inability to acquire advertisers, went out and sold their own signs.
6. The improvements made to the stadium also benefitted the Cards!!!!!
7.(this point was made on the radio) for the Cards to claim damages on the level of Denver, Buffalo and GBay just shows how low these guys will go.
8. Finally (this point was also mentioned), the Bidwills have their stadium, you've had enough problems with PR, just take your money and be happy.

I hate to admit it, but when someone says "hey the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Cards, ASU is in the wrong here" they have some validated to that point, so we need to focus more on countering that point, IMHO.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too critical, just a few comments that might help our cause in the future. Keep up the great work.

We may be beating a horse here, but we are Cardinals fans, and beating dead horses is our business!

here's the repsonse I posted on their message board:

1. the ABOR forced ASU into this contract.
Is there a link to a document or news article that substantiates this? If so, please provide a link. If not, please stop mentioning this as fact.

2. ASU went to the Cards twice to change the contract, the Cards, as always, refused.
Find me one person, or business entity, that would be willing to change a contract that would take away their ability to be involved in decisions effecting their revenue and advertisers.

3. The stadium needed improvements and ASU, being the great guys they are, wanted private funds to pay for it.
You mean a hand out? If you are residing in a rental property, who is responsible for repairs and maintenance? The landlord, correct? Sun Devil Stadium is owned and operated by ASU; hence any improvements, upkeep, or maintenance is their financial responsibility.

4. (Another huge point we need to focus on) The Cardinals, even if they had ALL of the signage, have consistently been unable to find sponsers because of their pathetic public relations and attendance problems.
True. this is why I am not worried about any sort of damage awarded to the Cardinals by the arbitrator ruling on this issue. $12-21 million is a pipe dream by the Cardinals. I doubt that they would be awarded more than $3 million, and even that would be a stretch in my opinion.

5. ASU, because of the ambiguous wording in the contract and the Cards inability to acquire advertisers, went out and sold their own signs.
Opinion? I think so. Much of the inability to secure advertisers by the Cardinals had to do with conflicts with businesses already advertising in Sun Devil. The arbitrator mentioned this in his ruling against ASU.

6. The improvements made to the stadium also benefited the Cards!!!!!
True. In my opinion, once the Cardinals realized back in the early 90's that they would not be getting the stadium they were promised upon their arrival back in 88, they should have entered a partnership deal with ASU in relation to Sun Devil. I can only imagine how awesome Sun Devil would be if the Cardinals put $8-10 million into it. It's not like they couldn't afford it, or that it wouldn't be a sound, long-term, business decision.

7.(this point was made on the radio) for the Cards to claim damages on the level of Denver, Buffalo and GBay just shows how low these guys will go.
While it does seem preposterous to compare themselves to those NFL franchises, it does make sense. The Denver Broncos, the Green Bay Packers, and the Buffalo Bills are used as examples in this situation because they were leasers in stadiums that they did not own and have had "signage sharing" issues in the past.

8. Finally (this point was also mentioned), the Bidwills have their stadium, you've had enough problems with PR, just take your money and be happy.
From your mouth, to Papa Doc Bidwill's ear...