Mac the Knife Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 23 hours ago, Sykotyk said: But, what leverage would the NFL have had? The idea that 'only four' would make it is ignoring the REASON why the the USFL team would have been admitted to the NFL. The NFL thought very little of the USFL, even when they were stealing a few of their players. These weren't teams the NFL felt necessary to add, at that time. Especially the primary culprit of 'let's compete with them until they let us in' the way the Generals were run. They wouldn't have let any team in before Trump's team. Where would the expansion money come from? The only way the USFL gets into the NFL was if they had a giant dollar figure to hold over the NFL's head. And all members of the USFL (including Chicago who I didn't realize were still officially hanging on, despite not planning to play the first fall schedule) would have wanted in. The value of getting into the NFL, en masse, would've been worth more than probably the expansion fee charged and the potential profit they could make over the years in exchange for them to 'look the other way' about the NFL's anti-competitive nature now they're part of it. The NBA/ABA deal, that you might forget, was fostered by 'buying off' the lesser teams with annual percentage of the television rights fees. Paid for BY the ABA teams that did get admitted into the NBA. I doubt the four USFL teams would hand over a chunk of their NFL television revenue to get into a league that owes them millions. Now, the NFL as a whole could broker a deal to exchange money owed to a team to let them in. But, you'd think if they overlooked the primary reason they wanted to compete with the NFL in the first place, they're going to face another lawsuit. Again for using their monopoly position to absorb the competition and continue to be anti-competitive in the face of the judgement. They would lose. There's no way they wouldn't lose unless those teams agreed to be treated differently than the teams getting a spot in the league and annual revenue/profits by being part of the NFL. Which is why the ABA teams that don't exist were offered buyouts, some including annual payments every year from television rights fees in exchange for not participating. You seriously don't think the NFL (circa 1988) couldn't borrow $600 million to cover the tab had they lost the court case? They were pulling in $473 million a year from television rights alone by that time. $600 million would've been easy to scrape up, even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 What would've happened had the ABA and WHL merged? That's what I want to know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Mac the Knife said: What would've happened had the ABA and WHL merged? That's what I want to know... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpkqDEgVhaM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Mac the Knife said: You seriously don't think the NFL (circa 1988) couldn't borrow $600 million to cover the tab had they lost the court case? They were pulling in $473 million a year from television rights alone by that time. $600 million would've been easy to scrape up, even then. That wasn't profit. And that's low-end money from the speculation. Had the judgement been $567 million tripled to $1.7 billion, would've been a stretch. But, even low-end, would lenders be happy to hand over that kind of money just to pay off competition, who will not have $500 million to be direct competition. Hell, the lender's would be more likely to loan the USFL $500 million given the judgement than the NFL. If the 30 NFL teams were bringing in $476 million/year, not all of it is profit. That's operating revenue of $15.8 million per team. They do need that to survive. If the USFL survived a judgement and didn't merge with the NFL, what would the rights fee be for a league without any debt compared to a league with $600+ million in debt probably asking for a big increase. An increase the USFL could counter with a much smaller payment needed. Which is the entire reason for a judgement in an anti-trust suit. To knock the trust down a peg, and prop up the unduly punished competition. The issue is the NFL would not WANT to give away that much money to their competition. They'd rather go AFL route and bring them in. It costs them no actual cash to include the USFL teams. This was before the stadium building frenzy, so it's not like the NFL is afraid of losing open markets as bait at that time. A team moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis simply because it had a nicer stadium, albeit about 55,000 seats. They didn't command much in the way they do today. There wasn't leverage. They'd give into the USFL's plan of joining the league. And grit their teeth and let the biggest blowhard get in. They couldn't argue territorial rights, etc, because that would go against the original lawsuit's verdict. That being the NFL used their monopoly power. And territorial rights are a monopoly power. And they'd have to decide things... within weeks. It was July 29th, the season started just a month later. Sure, the NFL would appeal. But, with a $1.7 billion judgement against them (even $600 million), the USFL would have the NFL by the balls. Meanwhile, the USFL would have a very big carrot to dangle to investors who no longer would see the USFL as a risky bet. Even if the case went another year in appeals, the USFL could play a year by themselves, and the networks (due for a new contract in 87) would be apprehensive about just handing over a big wad of cash to a league facing the outcome of a prolonged appeal that may go against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 8 hours ago, Sykotyk said: That wasn't profit. And that's low-end money from the speculation. Had the judgement been $567 million tripled to $1.7 billion, would've been a stretch. But, even low-end, would lenders be happy to hand over that kind of money just to pay off competition, who will not have $500 million to be direct competition. Hell, the lender's would be more likely to loan the USFL $500 million given the judgement than the NFL. If the 30 NFL teams were bringing in $476 million/year, not all of it is profit. That's operating revenue of $15.8 million per team. They do need that to survive. If the USFL survived a judgement and didn't merge with the NFL, what would the rights fee be for a league without any debt compared to a league with $600+ million in debt probably asking for a big increase. An increase the USFL could counter with a much smaller payment needed. Which is the entire reason for a judgement in an anti-trust suit. To knock the trust down a peg, and prop up the unduly punished competition. The issue is the NFL would not WANT to give away that much money to their competition. They'd rather go AFL route and bring them in. It costs them no actual cash to include the USFL teams. This was before the stadium building frenzy, so it's not like the NFL is afraid of losing open markets as bait at that time. A team moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis simply because it had a nicer stadium, albeit about 55,000 seats. They didn't command much in the way they do today. There wasn't leverage. They'd give into the USFL's plan of joining the league. And grit their teeth and let the biggest blowhard get in. They couldn't argue territorial rights, etc, because that would go against the original lawsuit's verdict. That being the NFL used their monopoly power. And territorial rights are a monopoly power. And they'd have to decide things... within weeks. It was July 29th, the season started just a month later. Sure, the NFL would appeal. But, with a $1.7 billion judgement against them (even $600 million), the USFL would have the NFL by the balls. Meanwhile, the USFL would have a very big carrot to dangle to investors who no longer would see the USFL as a risky bet. Even if the case went another year in appeals, the USFL could play a year by themselves, and the networks (due for a new contract in 87) would be apprehensive about just handing over a big wad of cash to a league facing the outcome of a prolonged appeal that may go against them. I never claimed it was profit. But it was revenue, which is what bankers tend to view first and foremost when it comes to making loans. And seeing how NFL television rights fees had been escalating to that point (actually, all the way to today), I have no doubt the NFL could've paid off a judgment as high as a billion before it would even consider buckling under in a fashion that admits all the USFL franchises, or a franchise in any city the NFL didn't want one. The antitrust suit had nothing to do with territorial rights - it had to do predominately (though not entirely) with television. Save for Al Davis' testimony about his case against the NFL, nowhere in the nearly 2,000 pages of court documents I possess does the subject of territorial rights come up; they're not a monopoly power, they're a self-regulatory one within an organization. A Dunkin' Donuts franchisee in Stockton can sue Dunkin' Donuts if it allows another franchisee within its territory, but that doesn't prevent Tim Horton's from putting a franchisee right next door if it chooses to. No doubt a large judgment amount award to the USFL would have had significant consequences for the NFL. But it would've taken one hell of a large amount (I'd arbitrarily put that number, after trebling, at $1.5 billion) for the NFL to simply roll over and accept whatever terms the USFL might want in a settlement. It sure would've been fun to see, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nflmich17 Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 I never know there was my thread was similar thread to one On 1/26/2016 at 1:48 PM, B-Rich said: Good answer, Mac, but I think it'd be a little different (by the way, this was covered about 4 years ago in a similar thread): http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/81539-the-what-if-thread/?page=1 What we know at the time of the trial: By the time of the anti-trust trial, there were only nine (9) franchises left, and the USFL had tentative plans to play with only 8 franchises in the fall (the Chicago franchise, owned by Eddie Einhorn, was going to remain on hiatus as they were in 1985). The league was set up thus: Independence Division 1. Arizona Outlaws 2. Jacksonville Bulls(merged with Denver Gold) 3. Orlando Renegades 4. Tampa Bay Bandits Liberty Division 5. Baltimore Stars 6. Birmingham Stallions 7. Memphis Showboats 8. New Jersey Generals(merged with Houston Gamblers) 9. Chicago (franchise owned by Eddie Einhorn on hiatus) Now, as we all know, the jury in the case declared the NFL a "duly adjudicated illegal monopoly," and found that the NFL had willfully acquired and maintained monopoly status through predatory tactics. But, the jury awarded the USFL only one dollar in nominal damages, which was tripled under antitrust law to three dollars. It later emerged that the jury incorrectly assumed that the judge could increase the award. What if the jury did not rely on that incorrect assumption, and in fact decided to award the USFL a considerable amount of money, say something in the realm of $100-200 million, which then automatically trebled to $300-600 million? Let's say for arguments sake that happened. At that standpoint, rather than paying the damages directly to the USFL and allowing them (now flush with cash) to proceed on a fall schedule directly opposite the NFL, the NFL may have brokered a deal to allow a certain number of USFL teams into the league in lieu of paying the league the trebled fines. The New Orleans Saints were sold in 1985 for just over $70 million, so with that as a baseline franchise value, one could assume this could enable the horse-trading to begin. On that, Mac and I are on the same page. I would assume that not all of the nine remaining franchises would get in. Clearly, Tampa Bay and Birmingham, who were on shaky ground anyway, would be offered financial compensation to fold (especially Tampa Bay, which would have gone head to head with the Buccaneers). Orlando probably would have been offered a similar deal due to them being a 4th Florida franchise and a relatively small market too close to Tampa Bay. Arizona, Memphis, and Jacksonville were new markets for the NFL and likely could have made the jump. Baltimore would be a replacement for the recently departed Colts. Then is the point where Mac and I differ. Einhorn and Trump were the prime movers behind the suit and move to fall; there was no way that they would get left out of the deal to be in the NFL. Chicago would get a second NFL franchise (not named the Blitz; Einhorn had already stated he was going to change the name - http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/31/sports/einhorn-heads-usfl-team.html). And the NFL owners would have to swallow hard and let Trump's New Jersey Generals in as a third NY-area franchise. Of course the horse trading would include territorial infringements payments to the NY and Chicago franchises and other details. Maybe a financial deal works out like this. Let's say the jury award was halfway between $300 and $600 million - $450 million. Each of the nine franchises would thus be entitled to $50 million without a merger deal. Remaining 6 teams pay $50 million each to 3 teams (Tampa Bay, Orlando, and Birmingham) to go away ($25 million per each remaining team). NFL allows remaining 6 teams into NFL with no "expansion fee". Trump: pays $25 million each to Jets and Giants for infringement. Einhorn: pays $25 million to Bears for territorial infringement. So, Trump gets an NY franchise in the NFL for "going rate" ($75 million cash outlay), Einhorn gets in for less ($50 million outlay) and the other 4 get in for peanuts ($25 million outlay), while the NFL is out NO CASH. Of course, this would have meant an immediate 6 team expansion of the NFL to an unwieldy 34 teams. At the time, the NFL had six divisions, so a quick fix for the first season would probably have been to assign one team to each division as such: AFC: East Buffalo Bills NY Jets New England Patriots Miami Dolphins Indianapolis Colts Baltimore Stars Central Cleveland Browns Pittsburgh Steelers Cincinnati Bengals Houston Oilers Chicago (Fire?) West LA Raiders Seattle Seahawks Denver Broncos San Diego Chargers Kansas City Chiefs Memphis Showboats NFC East Washington Redskins Philadelphia Eagles NY Giants Dallas Cowboys St. Louis Cardinals New Jersey Generals Central Minnesota Vikings Chicago Bears Green Bay Packers Detroit Lions Tampa Bay Buccaneers Jacksonville Bulls West San Francisco 49ers LA Rams Atlanta Falcons New Orleans Saints Arizona Outlaws Over time, the league may have been reconfigured to a 4 division set up with a 4-4-4-5 set up in each conference, but that's another story. What would this have entailed over time? Chronologically, this: 1. St. Louis Cardinals would not have moved to Arizona. Eventually, they may have threatened to move to--- Charlotte. 2. Jim Kelly doesn't play for the Bills; they do not go to 4 Super Bowls. 3. The expansion of 1995 does not occur. This may be the time frame when the Cardinals (if they never get a stadium) move to Charlotte. 4. The Raiders likely move back to Oakland, but the Rams move to St.Louis is much more unlikely. 5. The Browns do not move to Baltimore to become the Ravens, and are not replaced with an expansion/replacement franchise. 6. With a team in Tennessee, the Oilers are unlikely to move to Nashville. \ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nflmich17 Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 Here my idea of USFL/NFL merger & WLAF gets in the fun, it's like this one http://canihaveasay.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-if-usfl-had-survived.html The USFL teams that lives in 1986 with no Fall move (with Chicago Blitz not playing in 86 season) Western Conference:Portland Breakers,San Antonio Gunslingers,Memphis Showboats,Arizona Outlaws,Oakland Invaders Eastern Conference :Jacksonville Bulls,Tampa Bay Bandits,New Jersey Generals,Baltimore Stars,Birmingham Stallions,Orlando Renegades The 87 Season would like this to 95 season aka Merger Season Independence Conference Pacific Division :Portland Breakers,Arizona Outlaws,Oakland Invaders Central Division:San Antonio Gunslingers,Memphis Showboats,Chicago Blitz Liberty Conference Atlantic Division:New Jersey Generals,Baltimore Stars,Birmingham Stallions Southern Division:Jacksonville Bulls,Tampa Bay Bandits,Orlando Renegades The Merger.First WLAF Alignment (plays in the spring) American Division:Jacksonville Bulls,Tampa Bay Bandits,New Jersey Generals,Oakland Invaders,Orlando Renegades,Chicago Blitz European Division:Amsterdam Admirals,Barcelona Dragons,London Monarchs,Scotland Claymores,Rhein Fire Now USFL/NFL Merger with two expansion teams in 95 AFC AFC Eastern Buffalo Bills Baltimore Stars* New England Patriots New York Jets Pittsburgh Steelers Indianapolis Colts AFC Central Cincinnati Bengals Cleveland Browns Memphis Showboats* Houston Oilers Jacksonville Jaguars Miami Dolphins AFC Western San Diego Chargers Arizona Cardinals Denver Broncos Oakland Raiders San Antonio Gunslingers* Kansas City Chiefs NFC NFC Eastern Philadelphia Eagles Washington Redskins New York Giants Carolina Panthers Tampa Bay Buccaneers Atlanta Falcons NFC Central Green Bay Packers Detroit Lions Chicago Bears Minnesota Vikings New Orleans Saints Birmingham Stallions* NFC Western NFC Western Dallas Cowboys San Francisco 49ers Seattle Seahawks LA Rams(never move) Portland Breakers* Arizona Outlaws* What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Not that it's relevant to anything, but when I launched a flag football league in 2002, it had eight teams, which I aligned into "Liberty" and "Independence" divisions. At its pinnacle we had eighteen, having added "Freedom" and "Federal" divisions to the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nflmich17 Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share Posted February 1, 2016 so i read a forum talking about what if USFL lives here the http://www.oursportscentral.com/boards/showthread.php?t=10858 here the idea & i will continued it.Add expansion teams down the road every three years form 1986 to 97 there idea after that it's my idea i start in the 2000 season LIBERTY CONFERENCE Eastern Division:New Jersey Generals,Baltimore Stars,Memphis Showboats,Birmingham Stallions, Southern Division:Orlando Renegades:Tampa Bay Bandits:Jacksonville Bulls:New Orleans Breakers, Spirit of Miami INDEPENDENCE CONFERENCE Central Division:Michigan Panthers,Indianapolis Invaders,Chicago Blitz,St. Louis Stallions,Omaha Twister Western Division:San Antonio Gunslingers,Arizona Outlaws,California Express,Denver Gold, 2003 Season LIBERTY CONFERENCE Eastern Division:New Jersey Generals,Baltimore Stars,Memphis Showboats,Birmingham Stallions,Louisville Katz Southern Division:Orlando Renegades:Tampa Bay Bandits:Jacksonville Bulls:New Orleans Breakers,Virginia Cougars INDEPENDENCE CONFERENCE Central Division:Michigan Panthers,Indianapolis Invaders,Chicago Blitz,St. Louis Stallions,Omaha Twister Western Division:San Antonio Gunslingers,Arizona Outlaws,California Express,Denver Gold,LA Avengers 2006 Season LIBERTY CONFERENCE Eastern Division:New Jersey Generals,Baltimore Stars,Philadelphia Bombers,Rochester Jeffersons Atlantic Division:Memphis Showboats,Birmingham Stallions,Louisville Katz,Virginia Cougars Southern Division:Orlando Renegades:Tampa Bay Bandits:Jacksonville Bulls,New Orleans Breakers INDEPENDENCE CONFERENCE Central Division:,Indianapolis Invaders,St. Louis Stallions,Omaha Twister,San Antonio Gunslingers Northern DivisionMichigan Panthers,Minnesota Knights,Chicago Blitz, Wisconsin Destroyers Pacific Division:,Arizona Outlaws,California Express,LA Avengers,Denver Gold after this season USFL ended it's expansion era Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Merging with a retitled thread name. Please stop making new threads for the USFL. If this continues the way it's going this whole thread's going to be thrown into the relocation thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.