Arena Football News & Updates

[Kevin W.]

On 1/2/2020 at 1:56 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The game was properly forfeited to the Streets because Carolina walked off.  A team cannot unilaterally decide not to play.

If my employer doesn't provide me with a safe working environment, I have the right to refuse to work.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

7 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

If my employer doesn't provide me with a safe working environment, I have the right to refuse to work.

 

True. But not applicable to this situation.

 

The New York team was heavily fined for its incompetence in allowing the thefts to occur. (And the team's owners should probably be sued for the value of the lost property.)

 

But it was not an issue of worker safety. So the Carolina team had no legitimate reason to abandon the game.

 

The league decided to continue the game, and to deal with discipline against New York later (which it did do). Carolina had the obligation to abide by that decision.

[dont care]

4 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

True. But not applicable to this situation.

 

The New York team was heavily fined for its incompetence in allowing the thefts to occur. (And the team's owners should probably be sued for the value of the lost property.)

 

But it was not an issue of worker safety. So the Carolina team had no legitimate reason to abandon the game.

 

The league decided to continue the game, and to deal with discipline against New York later (which it did do). Carolina had the obligation to abide by that decision.

How was it not an issue of worker safety. When people can just sneak into a locker room and steal you can assume that they aren’t the best of people, and could have hurt or killed someone if they got caught. It wasn’t a safe situation for them and they refused to play is a perfectly fine result.

[Red Comet]

Here's an idea, New York Streets or any other 2-bit entertainment operation: Do background checks on whoever you hire to handle security/luggage. That $20 or so will save you a lot of headaches later.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Red Comet

[Gothamite]

52 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

If my employer doesn't provide me with a safe working environment, I have the right to refuse to work.

I mean, this isn’t even a close call. 
 

The NAL showed it has no integrity when they decided that Carolina’s refusal to play under unsafe conditions was the real problem, instead of the Street’s failure to maintain a safe workplace.

[Sec19Row53]

21 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

Here's an idea, New York Streets or any other 2-bit entertainment operation: Do background checks on whoever you hire to handle security/luggage. That $20 or so will save you a lot of headaches later.

Haha. This level of league doing background checks?

 

Again. Haha.

 

Spoken as a former employee of teams in the CIFL and AIF.

[Red Comet]

2 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Haha. This level of league doing background checks?

 

Again. Haha.

 

Spoken as a former employee of teams in the CIFL and AIF.

 

True. Should expect bush league nonsense out of bush leagues like this.

[Kevin W.]

52 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

True. But not applicable to this situation.

 

The New York team was heavily fined for its incompetence in allowing the thefts to occur. (And the team's owners should probably be sued for the value of the lost property.)

 

But it was not an issue of worker safety. So the Carolina team had no legitimate reason to abandon the game.

 

The league decided to continue the game, and to deal with discipline against New York later (which it did do). Carolina had the obligation to abide by that decision.

If the locker room can be broken into that easily, it is absolutely an issue of worker safety. What if someone was in there when it was burgled? How do you know that nothing violent would’ve occurred?

[GDAWG]

The sport has no credibility when it comes to owners.  Many of them are local business people who have no experience in owning pro sports teams before acquiring an Indoor team, some with questionable ethics. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

57 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The NAL showed it has no integrity when they decided that Carolina’s refusal to play under unsafe conditions was the real problem, instead of the Street’s failure to maintain a safe workplace.

 

There's no "instead". The league punished both teams appropriately. 

 

The league was consulted right after the theft was discovered, and it decided to continue the game. The Carolina team acted in open defiance of league orders.

 

The theft showed the Streets to be a cheesy fly-by-night operation that was incompetent to operate a team in even the lowest level professional league. For players' property to be stolen from an arena is an embarrassment.

 

But for a team to unilaterally decide to abandon a game and not be charged with a forfeit, this would have been far more than an embarrassment. This would have marked the league as not a professional league at all, but, rather, an elaborate scam. Short of gambling, this sort of thing is the most serious threat to the integrity of any competition, and merits harsh discipline. Carolina really should have been barred from the playoffs.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

If the locker room can be broken into that easily, it is absolutely an issue of worker safety.

 

The locker room wasn't broken into. It was left unguarded. 

 

37 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

What if someone was in there when it was burgled?

 

If someone had been in the locker room, then it wouldn't have been unguarded. And the thefts would not have taken place.

 

I get that it's fun to mock low-level leagues for their cut corners and their haphazard organisation. But that's no justification for turning a simple theft by opportunists from an unguarded room into some kind of murder mystery. No one was ever in any physical danger.

 

The point here is not to defend the New York Streets organisation, which evidently was not competent to run a team even in this low-level league. Nor is the point to minimise the seriousness of the property being lost by players who make very little money.

 

The only point is that the baseline requirement of a pro sports league is that the integrity of its competition be maintained. Even a league at the NAL's low level cannot be expected to tolerate a team walking off when that team has been ordered to play.

 

No matter what other mistakes the NAL has made (such as awarding a team to the Streets' owners and allowing that team to play in an inadequate building), the league unquestionably did the right thing by forfeiting a game when a team walked off. Every other league would have done the exact same thing under the circumstances.

[Brian in Boston]

15 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The league was consulted right after the theft was discovered, and it decided to continue the game.

The locker room wasn't broken into. It was left unguarded. If someone had been in the locker room, then it wouldn't have been unguarded. And the thefts would not have taken place.

The only point is that the baseline requirement of a pro sports league is that the integrity of its competition be maintained.

Failure to impose that forfeit would have damaged the NAL's integrity to a far greater extent than [the 2017 Jacksonville scheduling issues and the fact that the New York Streets' home field measurements did not meet league measurement requirements].

 

Point 1: The league's decision to continue said game is just the latest example of behavior that speaks to the lack of integrity displayed by NAL leadership. 

Point 2: There was the possibility that a person could have entered said unguarded locker room after the thief began to burgle the lockers of Carolina Cobras personnel. There was the possibility that said thief, startled while caught in the act of burgling the property of Carolina Cobras personnel, could have reacted violently. While it is fortunate that such an occurrence did not take place, I can certainly understand why Carolina Cobras personnel - alerted to the fact that their locker room had not been secured properly by the host New York Streets organization, resulting in their property being stolen - would be disturbed enough to not wish to continue with the game. 

Point 3: Leadership of the National Arena League established its disinclination to maintain the integrity of its competition in its very first season. That's when said leadership allowed the Jacksonville Sharks to play more home contests than any other franchise in the league. Integrity on NAL leadership's part would have dictated either requiring the Jacksonville Sharks to renegotiate their contract with their home venue in such a way as to allow for the team to play just six home contests in 2017, requiring the team to make arrangements to play said six games at another venue, or notifying the team that - in fairness to the league's other franchises - it would not be taking the field as an NAL member until 2018.

Point 4: I disagree. Exempting one of your member-franchises from having to play the same number of home and road games as all of the other teams in the league - indeed, awarding them extra home games at the expense of other franchises before the season has even begun - undermines the league's competitive integrity. Failing to require a member-franchise to secure a facility that can accommodate a playing field that conforms with league rules regarding field dimensions undermines the league's competitive integrity and could lead to player injury. Failing to insure that a member-franchise has provided for the security of its own employees and their belongings, as well as the bodily and property safety of the employees of visiting franchises, is a complete failure of moral integrity.    

[Gothamite]

18 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

Point 1: The league's decision to continue said game is just the latest example of behavior that speaks to the lack of integrity displayed by NAL leadership. 

Point 2: There was the possibility that a person could have entered said unguarded locker room after the thief began to burgle the lockers of Carolina Cobras personnel. There was the possibility that said thief, startled while caught in the act of burgling the property of Carolina Cobras personnel could have reacted violently. While it is fortunate that such an occurrence did not take place, I can certainly understand why Carolina Cobras personnel - alerted to the fact that their locker room had not been secured properly by the host New York Streets organization, resulting in their property being stolen - would be disturbed enough to not wish to continue with the game.

Again, I’m absolutely shocked that any of this is in dispute.  Are the rights of workers so disposable when they get in the way of our entertainment?
 

The league behaved shamefully.  They should not have forced Carolina to work in an unsafe environment.  If the league had any integrity at all, they would have postponed the game. And if a forfeit was necessary, it shouldn’t have rewarded the team who failed to create a safe working environment.
 

The situation was entirely the Streets’ fault in the first place; their failure was the original sin from which everything else sprung. Bad enough that Carolina was punished at all, and absolutely deplorable that the league decided to punish them more. 

[Sodboy13]

Somebody translate "integrity" into Esperanto so Ferdinand can grasp its meaning.

[GDAWG]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Again, I’m absolutely shocked that any of this is in dispute.  Are the rights of workers so disposable when they get in the way of our entertainment?
 

The league behaved shamefully.  They should not have forced Carolina to work in an unsafe environment.  If the league had any integrity at all, they would have postponed the game. And if a forfeit was necessary, it shouldn’t have rewarded the team who failed to create a safe working environment.
 

The situation was entirely the Streets’ fault in the first place; their failure was the original sin from which everything else sprung. Bad enough that Carolina was punished at all, and absolutely deplorable that the league decided to punish them more. 

 

yeah, if anything that lessens any credibility the NAL may have had. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

@Brian in Boston - Smaller leagues ranging from the WFL to the MISL to independent minor baseball leagues have had seasons in which teams played differing numbers of home games. In the early NFL, teams played varying numbers of total games. The USFL once moved a playoff game from the home of the team that had earned it to the home of the other team, because the other team drew better. And plenty of leagues have had travel teams with no home venues. None of this is ideal. But that's life when you're not a behemoth that can dictate terms to everyone in sight.

 

 

@Sodboy13 - Integreco: kiam tiu, kiu regas estas la ligo, ne ajna aparta klubo. (When the league, not any particular team, is in charge.)

 

(But I give you credit for a nice quip.)

 

 

@Gothamite - It is reasonable to argue that the league should have called off the game. But, once the league did not take that decision, to assert that a team that walks off without permission should not be punished is absolutely outrageous.

 

Walking off is more serious than uneven scheduling or wonky fields. The only offence more serious than abandoning a game is gambling.

 

Understand that this is no defence of the New York Streets. That team was at fault for the theft, and is responsible for the embarrassment caused to the league as well as for the players' lost property. The people in charge of that team should be subject to civil suits, perhaps even to criminal charges of negligence. On account of the Steeets' bungling, the team was heavily fined, and was not invited back to the NAL for the subsequent season.

 

But Carolina walked off the m-f-ing field without authorisation. That simply cannot stand in a professional league; it's a question of "who's in charge here?"

 

The only problem with the forfeit against Carolina is that that punishment wasn't harsh enough, as a single loss for a team with a very good record might make no difference. Being barred from the playoffs would provide the necessary counter-incentive to any team ever trying such a stunt again.

 

The bottom line is that a team may not act unilaterally in defiance of the league. All fans of any pro sport should be expected to agree to this bedrock principle. 

 

It is saddening to see people get so consumed by a weird hatred of small leagues that they are willing to ignore a most serious threat to the integrity of a professional competition, and that they are also prepared to take leave of their sense of ethics. But that's the internet for you. 

 

What is satisfying is that, in the real world, the NAL handled the matter correctly, in the exact same manner that every other league would do if one if its teams defied league orders and abandoned a game.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It is saddening to see people get so consumed by a weird hatred of small leagues

Oh, yeah.  Insults will totally camouflage the fact that you’re losing the argument on its merits.

 

Tell you what, you don’t psychoanalyze your fellow posters, and we’ll agree not to notice that your lauded socialist concern for working people gets tossed aside when you happen to like their corporate master.  Deal?

 

This is an issue of workplace safety, first and foremost.  It’s sad that the Streets didn’t take their responsibility seriously, and it’s beyond pathetic that the league didn’t force them to.  The only ones blameless in this situation are the workers who decided they didn’t actually have to put up with an unsafe environment and used the little power they have to do something about it.

 

But if you want to ignore the workplace safety and focus on the integrity of competition, here’s a competitive hypothetical for you - given the precedent that the NAL has now set, what’s to prevent another team from going down 46-0 in the first half of a game, and deliberately creating unsafe conditions to rattle the other team or push them not to finish it?  After all, the Streets got a slap on the wrist while Carolina got a win taken away from them.  That’s a trade that a desperate team might willingly make.  What does that established precedent do for the competitive integrity of the league?

[Brian in Boston]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

That simply cannot stand in a professional league; it's a question of "who's in charge here?"

 

The bottom line is that a team may not act unilaterally in defiance of the league. All fans of any pro sport should be expected to agree to this bedrock principle. 

 

It is saddening to see people get so consumed by a weird hatred of small leagues that they are willing to ignore a most serious threat to the integrity of a professional competition, and that they are also prepared to take leave of their sense of ethics. But that's the internet for you. 

 

What is satisfying is that, in the real world, the NAL handled the matter correctly, in the exact same manner that every other league would do if one if its teams defied league orders and abandoned a game.

Point 1: Leadership of the National Arena League has proven, time and again, that they're not even in charge of their own circuit. Their "make-it-up-as-they-go-along" method of managing the league has resulted in multiple lapses in so-called "integrity".

Point 2: Please, stop dictating what "all fans of any pro sport should be expected to agree to" based upon your personal opinion.

Point 3: I can assure you that the opinions I've expressed in this thread have absolutely nothing to do with my being "consumed by a weird hatred of small leagues". I've attended games - indeed, in some cases been a season ticket-holder - of franchises in minor leagues and/or alternative pro sports ventures including the American Ultimate Disc League, the Arena Football League, Arena Football 2, the Continental Indoor Soccer League, the Major Indoor Lacrosse League/National Lacrosse League, the Major Arena Soccer League, the Major Indoor Soccer League, Major League Lacrosse, Major League Rugby, Major League Ultimate, National Pro Fastpitch, the Premier Lacrosse League, Roller Hockey International, the United Football League, the United States Football League, the World League of American Football, and World Team Tennis. In fact, I've attended National Arena League contests, having been to home games of both the Maine Mammoths and the Massachusetts Pirates.

Part 4: As I've made clear previously, you and I don't agree on the matter of whether the NAL "handled the matter correctly".

Bottom line? You are welcome to your opinion on this matter, just as those who don't agree with you are welcome to their opinions. That said, summarily dismissing those who don't agree with you by claiming that they're "consumed by a weird hatred of small leagues" is poor form. Beyond the pale, really.       

[GDAWG]

One of the main issues with these indoor leagues is that there are multiple teams owned by one or two guys, which causes issues.  We saw this in the Arena League with Ted Leonsis owning Baltimore and Washington DC and Ron Jaworski owning Philly and Atlantic City.  Unlike with the owners of the NAL or IFL, we know how Ted makes his money.  We know that Ted is finally solvent because if he had not been, I doubt he would be an NBA and NHL team owner.  The folding of the Arena League hurts Leonsis, but it's not likely to affect his ownership of the Capitals and Wizards. 

 

Apparently the money guy of the NAL is Ron Shurts, a businessman who owns the Carolina Cobras and Jacksonville Sharks, which means conflict of interest since both teams played in the NAL Championship last year.  I don't know how he makes his money, but probably through questionable means.  The Indoor Football League has a new money backer: The Germain Family, who are apparently an auto dealership family from Columbus, Ohio who will be owning two teams, the Frisco Fighters (giving DFW their third pro football team after the Cowboys and Renegades) and a Columbus, Ohio IFL Team in 2021.  The IFL already as three teams owned by Roy Choi (not the celebrity chef, but a man who owns a casino gaming company) in Cedar Rapids, San Diego and Oakland, the latter of whom is also co-owned by current Seahawks RB Marshawn Lynch.  The Arizona Rattlers are coached by Kevin Guy, who owns the Tucson Sugar Skulls in the same state and same league.  As a result, Arizona vs. Tucson has been known as the Kevin Guy Bowl. 

[Seadragon76]

It's not easy to find more people to put their money down on a sport that, more often then not, has it's fair share of failed franchises and leagues. The Arena League itself is the biggest causality of having two guys own all the teams.

 

The IFL does have that issue, but they seem to be far smarter (I guess) about it.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Tell you what, you don’t psychoanalyze your fellow posters, and we’ll agree not to notice that your lauded socialist concern for working people gets tossed aside when you happen to like their corporate master. Deal?

 

No deal.

 

The owners of the New York Streets were incompetent and irresponsible. They were also dishonest: at the start of the season they announced that the team would be playing some games at Madison Square Garden, even though there was never any such agreement in place, and all Streets home games were always going to be played at the undersized Westchester County Center. 

 

The burglary fiasco over which these owners presided brought only ridicule to the NAL and to the sport of arena football — and, by extension, to all small leagues. I resent this team for its negative contribution to the image of smaller leagues. The Streets were properly booted from the NAL.

 

I possess some New York Streets team gear. And even at selling hats and shirts to an eager buyer this team proved incompetent; earlier in this thread I described the big hassle of getting these idiots to take my money. I will sometimes wear these items because they look cool; and, when someone asks what that logo is, I am ready with an account of the team's dysfunction.

 

I have neither loyalty to nor respect for the owners of the New York Streets; and I can only suggest that someone who admonishes against psychoanalysing others would do well to heed his own advice.

 

Finally, my socialist concern for working people is fully intact.

 

In the first season of the ABA, the team that would the next seasom become the New York Nets was slated to host a one-game tiebreaker playoff game. The team arranged to rent an arena in Commack, Long Island because its regular home arena in Teaneck, New Jersey (the team was the New Jersey Americans for that season) was not available. But the Commack arena, after it was inspected by the league, was deemed unplayable. A forfeit was charged against the New Jersey team. This is an example of a genuine case of workplace safety.

 

 

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

here’s a competitive hypothetical for you - given the precedent that the NAL has now set, what’s to prevent another team from going down 46-0 in the first half of a game, and deliberately creating unsafe conditions to rattle the other team or push them not to finish it?

 

Only the prospect of being fined more money than they made from the game's gate receipts, and then getting booted from the league. Contrary to your assertion, the Streets did not get "a slap on the wrist"; in fact they got the death penalty. (And rightfully so.)

 

Unfortunately, Carolina got what amounted to no penalty at all for walking off the field without authorisation, as the forfeit loss did nothing to prevent them from advancing to the championship game.

 

 

5 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

I can assure you that the opinions I've expressed in this thread have absolutely nothing to do with my being "consumed by a weird hatred of small leagues". I've attended games - indeed, in some cases been a season ticket-holder - of franchises in minor leagues and/or alternative pro sports ventures including the American Ultimate Disc League, the Arena Football League, Arena Football 2, the Continental Indoor Soccer League, the Major Indoor Lacrosse League/National Lacrosse League, the Major Arena Soccer League, the Major Indoor Soccer League, Major League Lacrosse, Major League Rugby, Major League Ultimate, National Pro Fastpitch, the Premier Lacrosse League, Roller Hockey International, the United Football League, the United States Football League, the World League of American Football, and World Team Tennis. In fact, I've attended National Arena League contests, having been to home games of both the Maine Mammoths and the Massachusetts Pirates.

 

That's more than most fans have done to support small leagues, certainly way more that I do, even given my purchase of gear from the Arena League, the NAL, the MLL, WTT, and others.  

 

I therefore retract my assertion that your comments are motivated by a hatred of small leagues, and offer my apology to you.

 

But I do believe that that attitude is prevalent. If the NBA or NFL made a decision not to halt a game, but a team walked off anyway, no one would begrudge one of those leagues calling a forfeit against the abandoning team.

 

 

5 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

Point 2: Please, stop dictating what "all fans of any pro sport should be expected to agree to" based upon your personal opinion.

 

I can't go along with this. I continue to assert that the idea that no team may act unilaterally should indeed be a universally-held value.

 

Even if someone disagrees with the league's decision on not calling off a game (which, as I have already acknowledged, is a reasonable position), once the decision to continue the game has been made by the league, all fans need to agree that a team has no right to disregard that league decision. We must (in the words of the great Sam Hinkie) trust the process. Otherwise pro sports are a sham.

 

 

4 hours ago, GDAWG said:

One of the main issues with these indoor leagues is that there are multiple teams owned by one or two guys, which causes issues.  We saw this in the Arena League with Ted Leonsis owning Baltimore and Washington DC and Ron Jaworski owning Philly and Atlantic City.    

 

4 hours ago, GDAWG said:

Apparently the money guy of the NAL is Ron Shurts, a businessman who owns the Carolina Cobras and Jacksonville Sharks, which means conflict of interest since both teams played in the NAL Championship last year. 

 

You got that right. In the 1890s, the National League had a big problem with what came to be known as "syndicate baseball", whereby owners had stakes in multiple teams. National League teams in Baltimore and Brooklyn were under common ownership, as were the New York Giants and Cincinnati Reds. After the most egregious case, in which the common owners of the St. Louis and Cleveland teams moved all their best players to St. Louis and consigned the 1899 Cleveland team to the worst season in history, the National League finally made a rule against this practice.

 

We got rid of that sort of corruption in baseball a long time ago, only to see it reappear in today's small leagues. We really need a federal law that prohibits ownership of multiple teams in the same league. Such a law would also rule out the odious "single-entity" structure, under which all teams are owned centrally by the league, which, in effect, results in all owners having stakes in all teams.