ozzyman314

The XFL may be making a comeback

Recommended Posts

On 6/7/2018 at 7:20 AM, Mac the Knife said:

Or... Vince gave him an option to buy into the league down the road if he (and the league) made it, say, 5 years.

 

 

Or Oliver Luck wisely knew that now is the time to leave the NCAA.

 

1-As of today, the NCAA doesn't allow Nevada to hold championships due to gambling. Well, that number of states increased by one this week with Delaware and NJ is ready for the governor to sign it into law, as well as Mississippi. There might be 25+ states which the NCAA has to work around as soon as the next academic year as they'll allow sports gambling.

 

2-The NCAA amateurism model is failing as well.

 

3-The Power 5 still may break away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 12:02 AM, Sykotyk said:

Sending 30 preloaded XFL branded iPad Pros to the 30 markets to submit their information is a little overkill. But, certainly lets the stadium authority or city know that the XFL is serious and finances aren't really an issue with their league.

 

I don't think a few grand in iPads is noteworthy in the slightest or indicative of solvency... really an unremarkable drop in the financial bucket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 1:54 AM, Sykotyk said:

As for the 30 markets:

 

Nothing wrong with it. Some are probably long shots. But, my guess is they're all 'mid-major' markets or on the periphery of major markets (Hartford/Rutgers for NYC, Evanston for Chicago, etc). Orlando can work again. There's a certain aspect of playing at the old Citrus Bowl that's beneficial compared to UCF for location.  The UCF location benefits from a lot of college kids showing up for weekend games, but if they're not showing up for UCF games, what's to say Alliance Orlando will draw? Camping World Stadium is more geographically centered. And better for fans southwest of Orlando and south (Lakeland, Osceola, Kissimmee, etc).

 

If XFL really wants to go back to 'football the way it was meant to be played' but 'reimagined', playing in the snow and cold is the way many people remember football in the fall as a kid. It may affect attendance, but you can't argue that a snow game isn't entertaining to watch on television. With all the domes, etc, there's so little opportunities. Even the NFL has rescheduled games when huge storms would roll through (Philadelphia played on a Tuesday to avoid a storm that never really materialized, even).

 

So, playing in the north makes sense. Playing in markets untapped by the endless repetition of secondary football leagues.

 

There's burnout. And aside from SLC, Phoenix, and Atlanta, the markets have had burnout. Atlanta certainly looks better thanks to the modified Turner Field now holding 25k or so as Georgia State Stadium. But, Phoenix in Tempe? If you want Arizona, why not be unique and go with Tucson? A huge city that isn't that far from fans in Phoenix, and might latch onto their own 'pro team' compared to being fifth in line in Phoenix, at best.

It's less about location, and more about the product. With the AAF inexplicably removing kickoffs from a sport(which has been a mainstay since the 1880s), there is an angle for the XFL to exploit. Real football, with fewer interruptions, and minus the micromanagement we see in the NFL could be a winner. One of the big mistakes the old XFL made was not paying enough attention to the football product, teams didn't have nearly enough practice time to deliver a cohesive product. In terms of the player safety issue, it would be easy to take a proactive approach(something the NFL failed to accomplish). XFL players would be required to wear the newest equipment, stay in the tent when instructed on the sidelines, and more oversight on those crucial offseason cognitive baseline tests players take. And actually talking about the many benefits of tackle football needs to be sprinkled in as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, C-Squared said:

 

I don't think a few grand in iPads is noteworthy in the slightest or indicative of solvency... really an unremarkable drop in the financial bucket.

 

Thats around $30,000 - certainly more than just a drop in the bucket for a league that’s yet to generate a dime in revenue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Thats around $30,000 - certainly more than just a drop in the bucket for a league that’s yet to generate a dime in revenue. 

 

Assuming they're the highest-end model and they paid full retail (both doubtful). I doubt we'll look back on free iPads as significant in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Thats around $30,000 - certainly more than just a drop in the bucket for a league that’s yet to generate a dime in revenue. 

 

That's about double and change what I spent to launch WKRP three years ago.  But it's nothing when you've committed at least $100 million to the overall launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority has the XFL as an agenda item for Friday's monthly meeting.

 

http://oraclearena.s3.amazonaws.com/doc/Agenda-06.15.18-1fda2c5197.pdf

 

http://oraclearena.s3.amazonaws.com/doc/Board-Package-6.15.18-e20e09b35e.pdf

 

According to the Board Package, RFP has to be acknowledged by the venue/municipality/university by Friday, with the proposal due back to the XFL no later than June 29.  

Edited by dfwabel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority has the XFL as an agenda item for Friday's monthly meeting.

 

http://oraclearena.s3.amazonaws.com/doc/Agenda-06.15.18-1fda2c5197.pdf

 

http://oraclearena.s3.amazonaws.com/doc/Board-Package-6.15.18-e20e09b35e.pdf

 

According to the Board Package, RFP has to be acknowledged by the venue/municipality/university by Friday, with the proposal due back to the XFL no later than June 29.  

 

Good find.  I'm wondering why the timeline is so tight though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

Good find.  I'm wondering why the timeline is so tight though.

Probably so they can have plenty of time to get the team up and operating, as well as establishing markets before the AAF gets to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the mods can combine the xfl/aaf threads into one all encompassing semipro football thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wings said:

Maybe the mods can combine the xfl/aaf threads into one all encompassing semipro football thread?

 

I think we should keep them separate, as it is likely one might outlast the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Wings said:

Maybe the mods can combine the xfl/aaf threads into one all encompassing semipro football thread?

They're two separate businesses, thus I try to separate the news about each business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I think we should keep them separate, as it is likely one might outlast the other. 

There's always going to be comparisons due to their creation so close together, their founders having history, etc. But, yes, news of each should be kept separate even if regularly compared to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can see the XFL outlasting the AAFL with a few tweaks to the locations chosen for clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who lasts longer will based entirely on how deep the pockets of their backers are, and how willing they are to burn money in building their brands.

 

My bet in this regard is the XFL, and my rationale for that bet is simple to make:  all business ventures that lose money over an extended basis eventually reach a point where a decision has to be made about its continuance.  That decision will be made based on the answer to a single question:  "Will we be able to recoup what we've invested in this, or is it time to cut our losses?"

 

The people backing the AAF are venture capitalists, first and foremost.  Charlie Ebersol and Co. may have an ownership stake, in fact they may have a controlling interest, but they aren't putting in the money it's taking to operate; the venture capitalists are.  At some point those VC partners will either see a means of recouping their investment, or they will withhold further funding, which will kill the league.

 

The XFL, meanwhile, is the province of one man.  One man who has not only the wherewithall to put hundreds of millions of dollars into it, one who has shown the willingness to do so, and most importantly, one who has prior experience to the extent that he knows what to expect in terms of potential losses.  Unlike venture capitalists who are looking for a monetary return, Vince McMahon is looking for a legacy builder.  And a man trying to build a legacy often will throw a large pile of good money after bad in the effort, knowing full well he'll never see it returned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

Who lasts longer will based entirely on how deep the pockets of their backers are, and how willing they are to burn money in building their brands.

 

My bet in this regard is the XFL, and my rationale for that bet is simple to make:  all business ventures that lose money over an extended basis eventually reach a point where a decision has to be made about its continuance.  That decision will be made based on the answer to a single question:  "Will we be able to recoup what we've invested in this, or is it time to cut our losses?"

 

The people backing the AAF are venture capitalists, first and foremost.  Charlie Ebersol and Co. may have an ownership stake, in fact they may have a controlling interest, but they aren't putting in the money it's taking to operate; the venture capitalists are.  At some point those VC partners will either see a means of recouping their investment, or they will withhold further funding, which will kill the league.

 

The XFL, meanwhile, is the province of one man.  One man who has not only the wherewithall to put hundreds of millions of dollars into it, one who has shown the willingness to do so, and most importantly, one who has prior experience to the extent that he knows what to expect in terms of potential losses.  Unlike venture capitalists who are looking for a monetary return, Vince McMahon is looking for a legacy builder.  And a man trying to build a legacy often will throw a large pile of good money after bad in the effort, knowing full well he'll never see it returned.

 

 Vince McMahon isn’t going to keep throwning money at the XFL if things look dire or even if it looks like it’ll take a long long time to turn a profit. McMahon is a egotistical nut job but he’s still a businessman, he cut his losses with the WBF, WWF New York, trying to promote boxing and backed off funding the WWF Hotel Casino in Las Vegas, he’ll do the same with XFL2.0 if he feels it reaches that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think he’s much more likely to cut his losses.  If his “legacy project” is a failure, he won’t want it to be a bigger failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has a breaking point, sure.  But if he's put $100 million into this just to launch it, odds are he anticipates putting at least another $150 million into it before considering throwing in the towel.  If the AAF's venture capitalists go down $250 million?  They'll definitely close up shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now