Very Fair Article on Cardinals/ASU

ajcardfan

I see you.
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
36,877
Reaction score
21,354
Feud between Cardinals, ASU has long history
By Bob Moran, Tribune
It was a shotgun arrangement. And supposedly a temporary one.
The public spat between Arizona State University and the Arizona Cardinals over advertisements that were sold at Sun Devil Stadium has put a spotlight on what has been a steadily deteriorating relationship.

The crux of the dispute is practically as old as the Cardinals themselves.
It's the stadium. It's the stadium. It's the stadium.

Or rather control of a stadium. The Cardinals have long waited for a home to themselves.

They were second banana when they played in Comiskey Park in Chicago, second banana when they played in Busch Stadium in St. Louis, and have found themselves for 15 years (and counting) in the Grand Canyon State still without the same control of a home field that their NFL brethren enjoy.

That's more than half a century of being the tenant having to ask the landlord permission to change the color of a room.

It's no wonder then that the frustrated Cardinals challenged ASU in court about advertising money ASU has collected since 1999 but didn't share per an agreement the two had signed in 1994. ASU claimed the Cardinals aren't owed anything because they couldn't sell any advertisements, and they're now trying to mooch off ASU. An arbitrator, however, ruled last year in favor of the Cardinals and said ASU owes the NFL team between $12 million and $21 million.

The judgment prompted ASU athletic director Gene Smith to go ballistic publicly, saying his entire department was in jeopardy. That in turn created another public relations nightmare for the Cardinals, who were still reeling from the battering they took in the media over their first two selections in this year's NFL draft.

The team was seen as a greedy corporation demanding money from a struggling established mom-and-pop outfit that was experiencing temporary financial hardships.

A POOR START
The working relationship between ASU and the Cardinals has been troublesome from the start. It's such a touchy issue that those with intimate knowledge of the two parties' dealings wouldn't speak to the Tribune on or off the record. Several former ASU employees would not return phone calls.

Those who spoke to the Tribune off the record were consistent in evaluating the relationship: It was never great from the start.

The Cardinals never got the welcoming from the Valley, that, say, Indianapolis showered on the Colts when they slinked out of Baltimore in 1984. In two weeks, the Colts received 143,000 season ticket requests.

"When they came to Arizona, it was not the most rosy reception," said former Arizona Sen. Dennis DeConcini, whose conversations with then-NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle in the mid-1980s helped bring the team to the state.

Owner Bill Bidwill was given inaccurate advice that the Valley was clamoring for NFL football. So he erred in raising ticket prices for a franchise that has always been among the most poorly run. The move was a public relations disaster.

"I don't know if it was the miscues of the Bidwills or the interpretation by the media. But it was not real joyous from the beginning," DeConcini said. "When he raised the ticket prices the press really came down on him hard. He got a lot of bad publicity, and I thought it was somewhat unfair."

The Cardinals’ public relations problems only gave the ASU faction that didn't want the NFL team around in the first place more reason to maintain an us-vs.-them mentality.

They became even more of a threat as ASU began to realize that its football program wasn't going to duplicate in the Pac-10 Conference the dominating success it had in the Western Athletic Conference. When the Cardinals arrived for the 1988 season, Arizona State had won one conference championship in 10 years. ASU left the WAC having won championships in seven of its last nine seasons.

Larry Marmie, current Cardinals defensive coordinator, was ASU's coach in 1988. During Marmie's four-year tenure, average attendance at ASU fell from 70,717 to 55,715.

Revenue declined accordingly and the athletic department started bleeding red ink. The Cardinals were a competing property for ASU and were viewed as part of the Devils' revenue problems.

If the Cardinals would only go away, the thinking went inside what was then the University Activity Center.

The Cardinals would have gladly left — to a new stadium in the Valley. But a community that started talking about a football stadium as far back as 1969 had yet to find a way to build one. The Cardinals weren't going to settle for being the only NFL team playing in a decades old college stadium.

"It was a marriage of convenience," DeConcini noted. "The Bidwills were always under the impression a new stadium would be built. Where they got that, I don't know. My guess is they got that from (Valley) business people who tried to entice them out there. But I don't ever remember seeing (a promise of a new stadium) as contractual."

Sources familiar with the working relationship of ASU and the Cardinals said part of the problem was the athletic department at the time didn't control everything involved in staging a football game. One sticking issue was parking, which was handled by the university, not the athletic department. Things didn't necessarily improve when management of the stadium was moved to Public Events. There was always that added layer of bureaucracy.

With ASU's revenue decreasing because the university had not prepared for the day when football ticket sales would drop dramatically, school officials began looking for new revenue.

One effort upset the Cardinals.

When the Cardinals got the Arizona Board of Regents to allow the sale of alcohol at Sun Devil Stadium, ASU officials tried to negotiate an advertising deal, or signage, with a local beer company, according to a knowledgable source.

CARDINALS' SIGNAGE
When a former Arkansas football player named Jerry Jones purchased the Dallas Cowboys in February 1989, the business in the NFL was about to change — and have an impact on ASU.

Jones was the first owner to go outside the NFL's revenue-sharing structure and negotiate his own sponsorship deals. He generated new revenue outside the customary ticket sales, network TV income, concessions, parking and programs through independent deals with local businesses.

Like other NFL teams, the Cardinals wanted to follow Jones' lead. The original 10-year lease agreement precluded the Cardinals from selling any advertising at Sun Devil Stadium.

In 1994, the Cardinals were allowed to procure signage and both parties agreed to share revenue. While ASU had permanent signage, the Cardinals’ signage had to be added to the stadium. Sometimes that didn't occur until after ASU had played a night game.

Privately, the Cardinals felt ASU benefitted from its permanent signage that was also visible during the the Cardinals 10 home games. That provided "added value" to the signage.

The Cardinals also claim their revenue potential was limited because they were prohibited from selling same "category" advertisements. For example, if ASU sold signage to Kmart and Cadillac, the Cardinals couldn't sell ads to Target and Mercedes.

By coincidence, ’94 was the season when ASU's worst fears were realized. Coming off a 7-9 season with the blustery Buddy "You've got a winner in town" Ryan at the helm, the Cardinals for the first time averaged more fans than ASU. The Cardinals averaged 62,166 fans while ASU's steady decline from the ’88 season had fallen to 46,802.

And ASU's financial woes continued to the point that president Lattie Coor instructed athletic director Charles Harris to eliminate the deficit. At one point early in the 1990s, ASU's athletic department budget was pared to $11.5 million to improve the balance sheet.

WHITE'S INFLUENCE
The uneasy alliance of college landlord and NFL tenant evaporated when Kevin White became athletic director in 1996. White, who arrived when the Sun Devils won their second Pac-10 championship in 17 years, wanted to cash in while the program was on top, which meant aggressively marketing the program.

The ’96 Rose Bowl season allowed White to erase the $2.6 million deficit he inherited. With the books balanced, White expanded the athletic department with a goal of increasing ASU's budget from $18 million to more than $30 million to keep pace with other Pac-10 public institutions. White understood the financial impact of sharing a stadium with a pro team, having been athletic director at Tulane, which plays in the Louisiana Superdome, also the home of the New Orleans Saints.

White used the expiration of the original 10-year suite leases to make another significant revenue policy change. Originally, the suite leases included ASU and Cardinal games, plus the Fiesta Bowl. White decided ASU would market the suites separately.

"This was a real change from where the university had been coming from before," said a source familiar with ASU and the Cardinals.

Efforts to reach White, athletic director at Notre Dame, were unsuccessful.

DRAWN OUT CASE
The Cardinals' claim against ASU says they were cut out of the revenue sharing starting with the ’99 season when ASU erected signs to help pay for modest improvements to Sun Devil Stadium.

At the heart of the dispute, according ASU, is the ’99 upgrade of the scoreboard and videoboard. ASU says the Cardinals would agree to split the costs when asked. So ASU believes it deserves to keep whatever additional revenue the new boards generated.

There's also a semantic disagreement over what is defined as permanent signage for shared revenue.

ASU says the Cardinals were too busy lobbying for a new stadium to procure sponsors.

ASU believes the Cardinals won't be able to prove they could have sold $12 million to $21 million worth of signage since 1999. The issue probably won't be settled until August or September. If ASU isn't satisfied with the ruling from what is called the remedy phase of the dispute, it would take the case to state court, which would prolong it for another year.

And so it goes.

NOT ALL BAD
The Cardinals’ push for a stadium contributed to the souring relationship. As the Cardinals became more frustrated over not having their own stadium, their explanations for needing a new home became criticisms of Sun Devil Stadium, which upset ASU and its fans. It didn't matter that the Fiesta Bowl now also is of the same opinion of the 44-year-old facility and is moving to the new stadium in Glendale to stay competitive with its peer bowls.

The Cardinals privately have complained about the cleanliness of the stadium following an ASU night game and the condition of the turf. That ASU practices at least once a week at Sun Devil Stadium contributed to the wear and tear, which often left the field in poor shape for the NFL team's December schedule. ASU said tough, it's our stadium.

"The Cardinals do have a public relations problem," DeConcini said. "But people have to remember football is a business. (The Cardinals) have their charities, and they're generous to the community.

"But when it comes to the business side they have to be business people whether they're dealing with ASU or the Sports Authority."

The Cardinals say the $50 million in cash and construction projects they've contributed to ASU should earn them more respect in the community. They also point out they would have agreed to share a new stadium with ASU.

The relationship is not totally contentious. ASU football coach Dirk Koetter has spoken at Cardinals clinics and the Sun Devils have practiced at the Cardinals complex in south Tempe.

ASU coaching great Frank Kush, a former Colts head coach, has done some work for the Cardinals and attends Cardinals functions.

"I'm hopeful they can solve their differences for the remaining time the Cardinals will be playing in Tempe," said Tempe Mayor Neil Giuliano, who works in ASU's office of Institutional Advancement. "It's in everyone's best interest for that to happen. Hopefully, they can do that."

Contact Bob Moran by email, or phone (480) 898-6576
 

40yearfan

DEFENSE!!!!
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Posts
35,007
Reaction score
432
Location
Phoenix, AZ.
Quote from above article:
They were second banana when they played in Comiskey Park in Chicago, second banana when they played in Busch Stadium in St. Louis, and have found themselves for 15 years (and counting) in the Grand Canyon State still without the same control of a home field that their NFL brethren enjoy.
<p>This is what gets me so ticked off when people holler about Bidwill being tight. The Cards have never generated the revenue streams other NFL teams have due to this very reason. They've always had to share those revenues, so they do not have the resources that Dallas, Washington, Oakland, etc. have and never will until their new stadium is completed. This is a big part of the reason the Cards can't hold onto their vets. The money isn't there to do it with. The irony of the whole situation is the fact that the Bidwills have managed to keep this franchise even without those revenue streams. Bill Bidwill is a great businessman and a generous one, and for the people who can't or won't understand these basic business facts, you can just keep on bashing. As these facts keep getting repeated and more and more people start reading and understand why the Cards are forced to make some of the business decisions they make due to money constraints, these same people will learn to appreciate Bill Bidwill and the Cards organization. <p>I for one would like to thank the Bidwill family for bringing the Cardinals to Arizona and giving my family a chance to see professional football in a live venue.
 

Lefty

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Posts
12,445
Reaction score
772
ASU fans don't think it's a fair article.
http://www.cactusranch.com/devils/msgboard.html


Here is an ASU fans thought on the article:

Because the Cardinals were 2nd banana in Chicago and St. Louis, then "It's no wonder then that the frustrated cardinals challenged ASU in court. . ."

You call that objectivity?

Then to give the cardinals' side that the Sun Devils using their own stadium to play football messed up the field for the cardinals? When A.S.U. fought this bastardation of its turf, the cardinals impact on OUR turf was a primary argument against the business people who forced the cardinals down our throat. DeConcini was evidently one of those people.

This article paints the cardinals as a poor victim. It even attempts to justify the cardinals' criticisms of SDS as a less than honorable stadium. Furthermore, Moran tries to view the cardinals' attempt to continue their aggression towards A.S.U. by arguing to tear down SDS and force A.S.U. into the cardinals' stadium as charity and amiable relations.

This trashy, one-sided "journalism" makes me happy that I didn't support their hit count by reading it on their "news site."

DevilDon, I'm sorry, but you should have taken a course in critical thinking before you come here to defend the cardinals. Yuck, "Objective?????"
 
Last edited:

JasonKGME

I'm a uncle's monkey??
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Posts
1,286
Reaction score
1
Location
Justin, TX
Originally posted by ajcardfan
The Cardinals say the $50 million in cash and construction projects they've contributed to ASU should earn them more respect in the community. They also point out they would have agreed to share a new stadium with ASU.

This is the most important part of this article. ASU is so upset that the Cards want thier share of the money from signage, and say that it would bankrupt the athletic department, I say fine lets do this then, give back all the money the cards of CONTRIBUTED to ASU and the Cards will drop the disput. I think thats fair. *GRIN*

Get a grip ASU fans, ASU clearly profitted off having the Cards play at SDS, it's only fair a portion of those profits should be shared with the Cardinals
 

AZBALLER

sleeping giant
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Posts
1,101
Reaction score
19
Location
AZ
All of a sudden, being one sided is fair, if that one sided opinion agrees with your own opinion???
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
34,956
Reaction score
31,369
Location
Orange County, CA
Originally posted by AZBALLER
All of a sudden, being one sided is fair, if that one sided opinion agrees with your own opinion???

What's so onesided about this article? It seems to talk mostly about the history of the relationship. ASU has never liked the Cardinals....that's a fact.
 

Cardinals.Ken

That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Posts
13,352
Reaction score
39
Location
Mesa, AZ
I really doubt that there can be an objectively written article at this point. The entire community has become so polorized over this issue that I doubt there can be a middle-ground anymore.

Personally, I see it as being objective, but to ASU-Fans and Cardinals-Haters (these are two separate groups) it is viewed as pro-Bidwillian propaganda, just like the way that the FanBoy article was well recieved by the ASU-Fans, but universally rejected as bogus by Cardinals-Fans.

Anyone who does offer objective or unbiased information on this issue will by ultimately despised by either side.
 
OP
OP
ajcardfan

ajcardfan

I see you.
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
36,877
Reaction score
21,354
Originally posted by Cardinals.Ken
I really doubt that there can be an objectively written article at this point. The entire community has become so polorized over this issue that I doubt there can be a middle-ground anymore.

Personally, I see it as being objective, but to ASU-Fans and Cardinals-Haters (these are two separate groups) it is viewed as pro-Bidwillian propaganda, just like the way that the FanBoy article was well recieved by the ASU-Fans, but universally rejected as bogus by Cardinals-Fans.

Anyone who does offer objective or unbiased information on this issue will by ultimately despised by either side.

"When there is a lack of objective evidence, humans inevitably become polarized into camps. Once that happens, they'd rather die than change their minds."

Brian Sykes - "The Seven Daughters of Eve".
 

Cardinals.Ken

That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Posts
13,352
Reaction score
39
Location
Mesa, AZ
Originally posted by ajcardfan
"When there is a lack of objective evidence, humans inevitably become polarized into camps. Once that happens, they'd rather die than change their minds."

Brian Sykes - "The Seven Daughters of Eve".

Cool quote...much better than Tango's re-treads :D
 

Angel

Registered
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
534
Reaction score
0
I have not heard any of the Cardinal players or management publicly say anything insulting about Sun Devil Stadium. Only that it is college stadium, which it is--that they have to share it, which they do--that they get less revenue being tenants, which is true--and that it is not the equivalent of other NFL venues, echoed by the NFL itself after Super Bowl XXX.

As a fan, Cardinal not ASU (I don't watch college ball) and a paying CUSTOMER of Sun Devil stadium I will say it, the place is bad, parking is bad, the restrooms are disgusting the concessions stands (south concourse) look like a 5-year-old assembled them with a rubber hammer, the aluminum benches will fry the skin off your butt in the summer, there is no leg room and no place to put the your beverage of choice if you don't hold onto it.

If the entire ASU athletic department is run with the same lack of care that was given to the grand old building that Sun Devil must have been when first built then it is no wonder they are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and that is NOT the Cardinals fault.
 

AntSports Steve

Cardinals Future GM
Joined
May 16, 2002
Posts
1,119
Reaction score
0
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Sounds like when Kevin White ran things, both the Cards and ASU started working together better and made more money.

Now that he's moved on, it's back to the ASU vs Cards again and the money is down. Looks like ASU needs to higher another Kevin White type of AD.

Also, I bet after the Cards have been in their new stadium for a few year, the ASU people start to clamor for a new stadium. Just wait and see.
 

WizardOfAz

ASFN Addict
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
7,247
Reaction score
1
Location
Long lonesome highway east of Omaha
Originally posted by AntSports Steve
Also, I bet after the Cards have been in their new stadium for a few year, the ASU people start to clamor for a new stadium.


Gene Smith has already come out and said that he needs $8 - $10 million to upgrade SDS after the cardinals leave for Glendale.
 

AZBALLER

sleeping giant
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Posts
1,101
Reaction score
19
Location
AZ
Originally posted by AntSports Steve

Also, I bet after the Cards have been in their new stadium for a few year, the ASU people start to clamor for a new stadium. Just wait and see.

ASU has had plans for nearly a decade now to improve SDS. They did the Cards a HUGE favor and didn't implement those plans, while the Cards called SDS home(notice improvements at almost all of ASU's athletic facilities, except SDS over the past few years). Both the Cards and ASU want the Cards to have a stadium of their own. If SDS was improved, then it would have killed the chances of the Cards getting a brand new stadium of their own...It's funny how ASU tries to help out the Cards, and in turn they get stabbed in the back...
 

Cardinals.Ken

That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Posts
13,352
Reaction score
39
Location
Mesa, AZ
Originally posted by AZBALLER
It's funny how ASU tries to help out the Cards, and in turn they get stabbed in the back...

And how have the Cardinals stabbed ASU in the back? This may seem like a pointed question, but I assure you it isn't. What examples do you have?
 

sundevilfan99

Veteran
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 19, 2003
Posts
122
Reaction score
0
Well...

Originally posted by Cardinals.Ken
And how have the Cardinals stabbed ASU in the back? This may seem like a pointed question, but I assure you it isn't. What examples do you have?

(I post as NewEnglandDevil elsewhere)

The suit for starters.

Second, the estimated damages.

Need anything more?

NED
 

Cardinals.Ken

That's Mr. Riff-Raff to you!
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Posts
13,352
Reaction score
39
Location
Mesa, AZ
Re: Well...

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
(I post as NewEnglandDevil elsewhere)

The suit for starters.

Second, the estimated damages.

Need anything more?

NED

Welcome to the board.

Yes, actually, I would like to hear something new.

This whole business about the law suit, arbitration, or whatever you want to call it really sucks. I hope it gets resolved somehow without ASU's althetic department getting squeezed or, God forbid, any jobs being lost.

But being a defender of ASU, ask yourself this; how did ASU get themselves into this situation? Why did they expose themselves to this kind of litigation?

ASU in not a "child" unknowingly entering themselves into contractual obligations without any idea of consquences. Someone somewhere along the line at ASU made the decision to put ASU in this postition. And whomever that is deserves the lion's share of criticism.
 

sundevilfan99

Veteran
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 19, 2003
Posts
122
Reaction score
0
Thanks

Originally posted by Cardinals.Ken
But being a defender of ASU, ask yourself this; how did ASU get themselves into this situation? Why did they expose themselves to this kind of litigation?

ASU in not a "child" unknowingly entering themselves into contractual obligations without any idea of consquences. Someone somewhere along the line at ASU made the decision to put ASU in this postition. And whomever that is deserves the lion's share of criticism.

for the welcome.

As to your question, here's what I believe happened.

ASU approached the Bidwills looking to negotiate signage which would pay for small improvements to the stadium (which the Bidwills would benefit from). The Bidwills wanted more than 1/2 of the signage revenue prior to expensing the improvements - thus making it fiscally impossible to get the improvements.

ASU moved forward because the contract, though ambiguously worded, was originally intended to maintain ASU's sovereignty over signage in the stadium and because ASU believed that any litigation by the Bidwills, even if the arbiter/court sided with the Bidwills, would have relatively small damages. Anyone would agree that even the $12M figure is ridiculously high for damages.

Personally, I don't believe that anyone at ASU should hold any blame. The Bidwills have a history of heavy-handed bargaining and approach the bargaining table with a "you must lose for me to win" attitude. The Bidwills do not have a history of fair bargaining practices and I don't believe that their dealings with ASU will be any different.

SDF99 (aka NED)
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
34,956
Reaction score
31,369
Location
Orange County, CA
Re: Thanks

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
for the welcome.

As to your question, here's what I believe happened.

ASU approached the Bidwills looking to negotiate signage which would pay for small improvements to the stadium (which the Bidwills would benefit from). The Bidwills wanted more than 1/2 of the signage revenue prior to expensing the improvements - thus making it fiscally impossible to get the improvements.

ASU moved forward because the contract, though ambiguously worded, was originally intended to maintain ASU's sovereignty over signage in the stadium and because ASU believed that any litigation by the Bidwills, even if the arbiter/court sided with the Bidwills, would have relatively small damages. Anyone would agree that even the $12M figure is ridiculously high for damages.

Personally, I don't believe that anyone at ASU should hold any blame. The Bidwills have a history of heavy-handed bargaining and approach the bargaining table with a "you must lose for me to win" attitude. The Bidwills do not have a history of fair bargaining practices and I don't believe that their dealings with ASU will be any different.

SDF99 (aka NED)

Could you give me a "history" of the Bidwill's heavy-handed bargaining?

And you don't think ASU deserves any blame for this, when they didn't pay the Cards what they were promised?

The Cards have done far more for ASU, than ASU has ever done for the Cards. ASU has profited heavily off the Cards.
 

sundevilfan99

Veteran
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 19, 2003
Posts
122
Reaction score
0
Here you go

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Could you give me a "history" of the Bidwill's heavy-handed bargaining?

And you don't think ASU deserves any blame for this, when they didn't pay the Cards what they were promised?

The Cards have done far more for ASU, than ASU has ever done for the Cards. ASU has profited heavily off the Cards.

1. We'll start with the Cardinals first round draft picks for the last several years. Exactly how long does it take to get someone signed AFTER they've already been 'boxed in'? How difficult is it to get 1st rounders signed prior to a camp? Or to pre-season? Or to the first game? How about not offering competitive insurance policies to their first rounders which prevents them from going to rookie camps and summer workouts? This isn't the first year for that either.

But it's not just the players. How about 'back-dooring' their Tempe proposal after the successful TSA authorization (which required the support of Glendale - and which they would not have had if the Bidwills had been up front with their Rio Salado stadium plan). How about trying to force ASU into playing in their stadium, while tearing down SDS and ripping up ASU's golf course? - through the legislature of course, but it was the Bidwills behind it. How about when he turned down Colangelo's interest in building a dual purpose stadium? Shall we go back to their history in St. Louis where they are despised? Or Chicago?

2. They didn't promise the Cardinals anything. Period. They tried to negotiate with the Cardinals, but that (as so many others have found out) was futile.

3. Without ASU the Cards wouldn't have a place to play in AZ - I would say that is a pretty big benefit. Perhaps they would have gone to another city. Please show me where ASU has proffited off the Cards. ASU's books are open. The Card's books are closed. ASU has netted $6.1M over 15 years. That is roughly $407,000 per year. Last year ASU lost money. Plus, when you factor in the costs of litigation, the loss of revenue do to the field not being available, the degenerative field conditions due to the Cards use, etc. that would reduce the overall net.

SDF99 (aka NED)
 

JasonKGME

I'm a uncle's monkey??
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Posts
1,286
Reaction score
1
Location
Justin, TX
Re: Thanks

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
for the welcome.

As to your question, here's what I believe happened.

ASU approached the Bidwills looking to negotiate signage which would pay for small improvements to the stadium (which the Bidwills would benefit from). The Bidwills wanted more than 1/2 of the signage revenue prior to expensing the improvements - thus making it fiscally impossible to get the improvements.

ASU moved forward because the contract, though ambiguously worded, was originally intended to maintain ASU's sovereignty over signage in the stadium and because ASU believed that any litigation by the Bidwills, even if the arbiter/court sided with the Bidwills, would have relatively small damages. Anyone would agree that even the $12M figure is ridiculously high for damages.

Personally, I don't believe that anyone at ASU should hold any blame. The Bidwills have a history of heavy-handed bargaining and approach the bargaining table with a "you must lose for me to win" attitude. The Bidwills do not have a history of fair bargaining practices and I don't believe that their dealings with ASU will be any different.

SDF99 (aka NED)


Heavy handed bargaining? Sorta like how for the last 12 years they have tried to get a stadium they have used heavy handed techniques like telling people "even without a stadium we don't want to leave Arizona" or "sure we'll pony up a third of the stadium cost, and heck we'll even guarentee the cost overruns" Yep those are pretty heavy handed bargaining techniques.

As for saying $12 mil is exorbanant, I find that funny because the INDEPENDANT ARBITRATOR is the one who threw out the figure of ASU owing around $12 mil. This was not a figure from the Cards but from the arbitrator, therefor how can you call it ridiculous?
 

WizardOfAz

ASFN Addict
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Posts
7,247
Reaction score
1
Location
Long lonesome highway east of Omaha
Well, Ned, I asked a couple of questions earlier, and never got an answer.

1) Where are Kevin White and Charles Harris? They are the one's who represented ASU during most of these events and would be able to fully support Gene Smith's point of view. I fine there silence curious, at best.

2) Show that there is no correlation to ASU violating the terms and conditions of the agreement with the Cardinals and the athletic department's inability to stay out of the "red".

3) Explain why the independent arbitrator ruled against ASU in May, 2002, yet this didn't become such a huge issue until May, 2003. Is ASU trying their case now, in the court of public opinion?
 

sundevilfan99

Veteran
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 19, 2003
Posts
122
Reaction score
0
Re: Re: Thanks

Originally posted by JasonKGME
Heavy handed bargaining? Sorta like how for the last 12 years they have tried to get a stadium they have used heavy handed techniques like telling people "even without a stadium we don't want to leave Arizona" or "sure we'll pony up a third of the stadium cost, and heck we'll even guarentee the cost overruns" Yep those are pretty heavy handed bargaining techniques.

As for saying $12 mil is exorbanant, I find that funny because the INDEPENDANT ARBITRATOR is the one who threw out the figure of ASU owing around $12 mil. This was not a figure from the Cards but from the arbitrator, therefor how can you call it ridiculous?

1. They have actively shopped the team around. They were never willing and are not now ponying up 1/3 of the costs.

2. What does that have to do with ASU? The Cardinals stadium problem has nothing to do with ASU.

3. How does that negate all my examples of 'heavy-handedness'? It doesn't.

4. Please don't lie. The Cardinals put together the damages proposal, not the arbitrator. Either you're lieing or you're misinformed.

SDF99 (aka NED)
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
537,294
Posts
5,268,620
Members
6,275
Latest member
Beagleperson
Top