Very Fair Article on Cardinals/ASU

[JasonKGME]

Re: Re: Re: Thanks

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
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)

1- When have they every actively shopped the team around? Please provide one piece of evidence to this effect. And you dont think on a $352 million dollar stadium that putting in $105 of thier own money is about a 1/3??? Ok slightly less then a third then does that make you happy? They have still offered to pay any overrun fees as well.

2- Cardinals stadium problems have nothing to do with ASU, ok thats a fair point, but if so then why does ASU's financial problems have anything to do with the fact that they breached contract and owe money? Absolutly nothing, but that is the only argument I ever hear from ASU fans on why the Cards are in the "wrong" on this.

3- What examples of heavy handedness? You didnt give any examples!!! Why dont you give some before making this kind of comment please.

4- Maybe you should research a little more, please note quote from original article in tribune above: "An arbitrator, however, ruled last year in favor of the Cardinals and said ASU owes the NFL team between $12 million and $21 million." per that quote the amount is based on what the arbitrator initially figure was, now of course it is being decided on an exact figure and what that will be is anyones guess at this point.


Please, please, please try to respond with some sort of facts as opposed to just your "views"

 

[sundevilfan99]

JasonKGME

1 - I have it on good authority that through a lawyer in St. Louis they were shopping the team around while the last stadium proposal was going through. I believed that the NFL was putting up much of the $100M but have since been informed that it is a loan. My bad.

2 - the Cards are wrong because they argue in bad faith and are obstructionists.

3 - I gave a bunch of examples from ST. Louis to Chicago to Colangelo, to ASU to their first round picks, to the TSA, etc. read the thread...

4 - the article from the trib is wrong...

"The Cardinals are seeking damages in a range from $12 million to $21 million, according to ASU. Bidwill confirmed the figures but would not elaborate."

[link]http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/0502footballspat020-CP.html[/link]

"In assessing their damages, the Cardinals hired sports consultant Bill Rhoda of Dallas to prepare an 18-page report. Rhoda could not be reached Friday.

Rhoda's March 28 report says along with losing the potential to sell signs to certain sponsors, the Cardinals lost the ability to sell those sponsors premium seating, season tickets, program, TV and radio advertising.

It also says the Cardinals should have been able to expect the same kind of sign revenues generated in comparable stadiums such as Denver's former Mile High Stadium, Green Bay's Lambeau Field and Buffalo's Ralph Wilson Stadium.

The average signage per year in those facilities is about $3 million per year.

The report does not mention that those teams have much stronger winning traditions, including numerous Super Bowl appearances and have historically drawn much better than the Cardinals."

[link]http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/0510asucards0510.html[/link]

 

[nidan]

Re: JasonKGME

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
2 - the Cards are wrong because they argue in bad faith and are obstructionists.

You don't know that !!!!!!

Would not it be more accurate for you to say

The Cardinals are wrong because I don't like them

 

[Cheesebeef]

don't you guys ever get bored of this argument - no one is going to all of a sudden up and say - "Oh, my God - you're right ASU is in the wrong" or "Yes, the Cards are in the wrong". Graves - where are you - the board needs something to polarize us again!

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: JasonKGME

Originally posted by nidan
You don't know that !!!!!!

Would not it be more accurate for you to say

The Cardinals are wrong because I don't like them

No - I do know that. Why else are other teams able to get their players signed on time? Why did it take several years for the Cardinals to give a decent insurance policy to their picks? How else could they have mucked up the stadium issue over and over again. I've offered plenty of evidence, but you all choose to ignore. Your choice.

NED

 

[nidan]

If you make the assumption as you do that the Cardinals were a "bad" organization, you have to admit they are changing with recnt events. So your point is now moot.

If the were not a "bad" organization then your point is moot.

Either way your point is moot. And none of those things have anything to do with this dispute.

I don't chose to ignore your points, I tried to answer them. You have not yet answered a single question of mine.

Try answering the "janitorial company" question, I see you have been ignoring that one.

All your responses consist of the Cardinals are bad, therefore by definition they are in the wrong. You take hpast events and spin them as "evidence" of how unethical the Cardinals are.

You have no idea why the Cardinals have troble signing picks, it's called CASH FLOW

 

[sundevilfan99]

the janitors

On the Janitorial question...

Yes, the janitors should sue and would be right to sue.

Please show me the work product the Cardinals have produced to 'earn' the money they are claiming. Your argument is false because the Janitors were actually doing work, whereas the Cardinals did not do any work - they are simply claiming 'assumed damages' based on numbers from successful NFL franchises.

The Cardinals have not produced a single advertiser who wanted to pay them ANY amount of money for signage opportunities. They simply claim that they lost money.

NED

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: the janitors

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
The Cardinals have not produced a single advertiser who wanted to pay them ANY amount of money for signage opportunities. They simply claim that they lost money.

NED

Well then, if that's the case, the arbitrator - the one who ruled in favor of the Cardinals in the first place - should have a pretty easy decision. And Gene Smith will then have to find somebody else to blame all the woes of his department on.

 

[nidan]

Re: the janitors

My point was that both my mythical Janitors and the Cardinals had a contract with ASU AD.

You appear to agree that ASU AD should be held responsible for their contractual agreements. Correct ?

I am content to let the arbitration prcess determine how the contract should be interpreted, that is what is is for.

If we can agree on this then ...

Now as to how much if anything the Cardinals are owed that is a totally different question and I think that if you park the rhetoric generator in neutral for a bit, you might discover more sympathy for your position that you suspect.

I don't think most people here feel the Cardinals are owed some of the sums that have been slung around. But frankly I don't know.

I suspect that if the arbitration process is allowed to proceed that a fair setlement will be reached. I also suispect that this setelment will be a lot lower than the numbers that ASU announced to the press for dramatic effect.

Given that neither of us really understand the details of this, I for one would prefer to wait and see what comes out.

Then I think you and the other Alums should be asking how the AS got into such a financial mess in the first place.

I know you believe that they aere strong armed into signing but the fact is they signed. With a contract in place they should have realized how much control the Cardinals had and done more to satisfy them.

I know tha this contract probsbly annoys you but it is a reality so ASU should have dealt with it. In the business world the type of contractual incompentancy ASU AD is showing would have got the people responsible fired.

 

[JasonKGME]

Re: JasonKGME

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
1 - I have it on good authority that through a lawyer in St. Louis they were shopping the team around while the last stadium proposal was going through. I believed that the NFL was putting up much of the $100M but have since been informed that it is a loan. My bad.

2 - the Cards are wrong because they argue in bad faith and are obstructionists.

3 - I gave a bunch of examples from ST. Louis to Chicago to Colangelo, to ASU to their first round picks, to the TSA, etc. read the thread...

4 - the article from the trib is wrong...

"The Cardinals are seeking damages in a range from $12 million to $21 million, according to ASU. Bidwill confirmed the figures but would not elaborate."

[link]http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/0502footballspat020-CP.html[/link]

"In assessing their damages, the Cardinals hired sports consultant Bill Rhoda of Dallas to prepare an 18-page report. Rhoda could not be reached Friday.

Rhoda's March 28 report says along with losing the potential to sell signs to certain sponsors, the Cardinals lost the ability to sell those sponsors premium seating, season tickets, program, TV and radio advertising.

It also says the Cardinals should have been able to expect the same kind of sign revenues generated in comparable stadiums such as Denver's former Mile High Stadium, Green Bay's Lambeau Field and Buffalo's Ralph Wilson Stadium.

The average signage per year in those facilities is about $3 million per year.

The report does not mention that those teams have much stronger winning traditions, including numerous Super Bowl appearances and have historically drawn much better than the Cardinals."

[link]http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/0510asucards0510.html[/link]

1- Well I have it on good authority that ASU allready said yes we own the Cards about $50 million dollars. Sorry provide something in writing from a credible source as FACT not just "innuedo" such as a news paper article with someone's name attached to the quote and then maybe I'll buy this.

2- Still waiting for some example of this, havent seen any yet

3- I did read the thread, I dont want your interpretation of examples, I want proof, once again something from a credible sourse. You assume that the issue in chicago and St. Louis were handled in a heavy handed manner, I have yet to see any proof of any however. please provide.

4- Well if that was the example used by the Cardinals in comming up with thier totals then shouldnt the amount from them be : $3 mil per year * 4 years = $12 mil at maximum? Not "$12 mil to $21 mil" as the article states??? I could be wrong on the arbitrator's amount because I am pulling my information from the Trib article and if he got his facts wrong I apologize on that, but I see no where in the repub article you quoted the figure of $12-$21 mil, only in the Trib article.

 

[JasonKGME]

Re: the janitors

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
On the Janitorial question...

Yes, the janitors should sue and would be right to sue.

Please show me the work product the Cardinals have produced to 'earn' the money they are claiming. Your argument is false because the Janitors were actually doing work, whereas the Cardinals did not do any work - they are simply claiming 'assumed damages' based on numbers from successful NFL franchises.

The Cardinals have not produced a single advertiser who wanted to pay them ANY amount of money for signage opportunities. They simply claim that they lost money.

NED

Obviously they have gotten several advertisers in the past, including Anheser Busch and several others, so that is an assinine statement.

As for the claim the Cardinals did no work, your telling me the 10 football games played there every year is not work??? They provided a national audience to the advertiseds of ASU, that to me is quite a bit of work.

Whats going to be interesting isnt this case, but how is ASU going to cover the lost revenue from signage that will be lost once the Cardinals move out??? Wont that cost ASU a few jobs as well?