Arena Football League reschedules draft, again...

[jkrdevil]

I'd add one more suggestion to Mac The Knife's list: Consider a promotion/relegation system between AF1 and AF2, allowing the small-market AF2 teams the opportunity to play their way up to AF1.

Here's how it could work: Reorganize the leagues to put, say, the 16 largest-market remaining teams in AF1, and the rest in AF2, with four divisions at each level that correspond geographically to one another. After each season, promote each AF2 division winner to its corresponding division in AF1 and demote the last-place team in each AF1 team to its corresponding AF2 division. Any future expansion teams would start out in AF2 and have to win their way up to AF1. If the AF2 divisions/conferences get too big, they could be treated as self-contained regional leagues for scheduling purposes (i.e. they would only play within their division/conference during the regular season, and mix only during the AF2 playoffs).

Yes, because relegations systems work so well finiacially in Europe.

While relagations systems are common and accepted in Europe, they cause complete unstability fincially for the teams that get demoted. I can't see it working any better in an area were relegations systems don't exist in a sport that is already finicially unstable.

Relegations systems are literally bad for business, and that's why they don't exist in North America where the leagues were designed to be businesses.

It needs cost containment with respect to players. This can be assured only one way - making active players true partners in the league as a whole, and giving them a fixed percentage of profits rather than revenues, with contracts structured in a fashion that guarantees individual players a piece of the player's "profit pie." If the league succeeds, the players prosper. If it doesn't, then the players are motivated to do whatever they can to make the business work in conjunction with the league, but at the same time you don't have teams folding left and right at the drop of a hat.

So if a team doesn't turn a profit the players don't get paid? It has been known for teams to lose money even before salaries. How do you expect to get players if they aren't guaranteed some pay. I understand that none of these guys in the league are necessarily playing for the money now but you do have to compensate somewhat for the time they have to give up to play in the league.

[Viper]

I'd add one more suggestion to Mac The Knife's list: Consider a promotion/relegation system between AF1 and AF2, allowing the small-market AF2 teams the opportunity to play their way up to AF1.

Here's how it could work: Reorganize the leagues to put, say, the 16 largest-market remaining teams in AF1, and the rest in AF2, with four divisions at each level that correspond geographically to one another. After each season, promote each AF2 division winner to its corresponding division in AF1 and demote the last-place team in each AF1 team to its corresponding AF2 division. Any future expansion teams would start out in AF2 and have to win their way up to AF1. If the AF2 divisions/conferences get too big, they could be treated as self-contained regional leagues for scheduling purposes (i.e. they would only play within their division/conference during the regular season, and mix only during the AF2 playoffs).

Yes, because relegations systems work so well finiacially in Europe.

While relagations systems are common and accepted in Europe, they cause complete unstability fincially for the teams that get demoted. I can't see it working any better in an area were relegations systems don't exist in a sport that is already finicially unstable.

Relegations systems are literally bad for business, and that's why they don't exist in North America where the leagues were designed to be businesses.

You're forgetting one thing: European football clubs don't operate under a salary cap. Arena Football does. As long as the per-team cap is kept the same for both AF1 and AF2 (and AF1 teams aren't held to higher standards WRT their playing facilities, a la Barclays Premier League for example), a P/R system could work.

[rams80]

I'd add one more suggestion to Mac The Knife's list: Consider a promotion/relegation system between AF1 and AF2, allowing the small-market AF2 teams the opportunity to play their way up to AF1.

Here's how it could work: Reorganize the leagues to put, say, the 16 largest-market remaining teams in AF1, and the rest in AF2, with four divisions at each level that correspond geographically to one another. After each season, promote each AF2 division winner to its corresponding division in AF1 and demote the last-place team in each AF1 team to its corresponding AF2 division. Any future expansion teams would start out in AF2 and have to win their way up to AF1. If the AF2 divisions/conferences get too big, they could be treated as self-contained regional leagues for scheduling purposes (i.e. they would only play within their division/conference during the regular season, and mix only during the AF2 playoffs).

Yes, because relegations systems work so well finiacially in Europe.

While relagations systems are common and accepted in Europe, they cause complete unstability fincially for the teams that get demoted. I can't see it working any better in an area were relegations systems don't exist in a sport that is already finicially unstable.

Relegations systems are literally bad for business, and that's why they don't exist in North America where the leagues were designed to be businesses.

You're forgetting one thing: European football clubs don't operate under a salary cap. Arena Football does. As long as the per-team cap is kept the same for both AF1 and AF2 (and AF1 teams aren't held to higher standards WRT their playing facilities, a la Barclays Premier League for example), a P/R system could work.

What's the point of even having two leagues then?

[jkrdevil]

I'd add one more suggestion to Mac The Knife's list: Consider a promotion/relegation system between AF1 and AF2, allowing the small-market AF2 teams the opportunity to play their way up to AF1.

Here's how it could work: Reorganize the leagues to put, say, the 16 largest-market remaining teams in AF1, and the rest in AF2, with four divisions at each level that correspond geographically to one another. After each season, promote each AF2 division winner to its corresponding division in AF1 and demote the last-place team in each AF1 team to its corresponding AF2 division. Any future expansion teams would start out in AF2 and have to win their way up to AF1. If the AF2 divisions/conferences get too big, they could be treated as self-contained regional leagues for scheduling purposes (i.e. they would only play within their division/conference during the regular season, and mix only during the AF2 playoffs).

Yes, because relegations systems work so well finiacially in Europe.

While relagations systems are common and accepted in Europe, they cause complete unstability fincially for the teams that get demoted. I can't see it working any better in an area were relegations systems don't exist in a sport that is already finicially unstable.

Relegations systems are literally bad for business, and that's why they don't exist in North America where the leagues were designed to be businesses.

You're forgetting one thing: European football clubs don't operate under a salary cap. Arena Football does. As long as the per-team cap is kept the same for both AF1 and AF2 (and AF1 teams aren't held to higher standards WRT their playing facilities, a la Barclays Premier League for example), a P/R system could work.

True, but there is still the situation of whether a relegation system you be accepted as it is something completly foriegn. I don't have the numbers but I'm going to guess that AFL teams draw higher attendances than AFL2 teams (although granted some of that is due to market size). A drop in attendance, for what is a gate driven sport, fromgoing down to AFL2 means a drop in revenue. With Salaries staying the same it creates a Problem. Maybe if you introduced something like two way contracts that if the team is in AFL2 the players make so much and if its in AFL they get more it could work. Still personally I'm not of a fan of relegation systems. There is something dishearting about knowing you team can't win the big championship right off the bat. It takes away that cinderella worst to first scenario.

[fkaKrock5cent]

Hey Krock have not seen you in awhile what is up. May as well make myself comfertable here again. So how has it been goingI do not see you on the afl site anymore.

Been awhile dude. Hows the ol' AFLMB I havent been there in ages. I think I'll check it out (it may not be there too long!)

And we need to find a way to get Mac into the commish role asap.

[rams80]

I'd add one more suggestion to Mac The Knife's list: Consider a promotion/relegation system between AF1 and AF2, allowing the small-market AF2 teams the opportunity to play their way up to AF1.

Here's how it could work: Reorganize the leagues to put, say, the 16 largest-market remaining teams in AF1, and the rest in AF2, with four divisions at each level that correspond geographically to one another. After each season, promote each AF2 division winner to its corresponding division in AF1 and demote the last-place team in each AF1 team to its corresponding AF2 division. Any future expansion teams would start out in AF2 and have to win their way up to AF1. If the AF2 divisions/conferences get too big, they could be treated as self-contained regional leagues for scheduling purposes (i.e. they would only play within their division/conference during the regular season, and mix only during the AF2 playoffs).

Yes, because relegations systems work so well finiacially in Europe.

While relagations systems are common and accepted in Europe, they cause complete unstability fincially for the teams that get demoted. I can't see it working any better in an area were relegations systems don't exist in a sport that is already finicially unstable.

Relegations systems are literally bad for business, and that's why they don't exist in North America where the leagues were designed to be businesses.

You're forgetting one thing: European football clubs don't operate under a salary cap. Arena Football does. As long as the per-team cap is kept the same for both AF1 and AF2 (and AF1 teams aren't held to higher standards WRT their playing facilities, a la Barclays Premier League for example), a P/R system could work.

True, but there is still the situation of whether a relegation system you be accepted as it is something completly foriegn. I don't have the numbers but I'm going to guess that AFL teams draw higher attendances than AFL2 teams (although granted some of that is due to market size). A drop in attendance, for what is a gate driven sport, fromgoing down to AFL2 means a drop in revenue. With Salaries staying the same it creates a Problem. Maybe if you introduced something like two way contracts that if the team is in AFL2 the players make so much and if its in AFL they get more it could work. Still personally I'm not of a fan of relegation systems. There is something dishearting about knowing you team can't win the big championship right off the bat. It takes away that cinderella worst to first scenario.

For the most part attendance is lower. Spokane and Iowa IIRC are the only teams that draw something approximating a lower performing AFL team.

I will mention that Austin and Iowa (the first af2 go-around) suffered a franchise-killing attendance drop when they went down a level.

[Mac the Knife]

It needs cost containment with respect to players. This can be assured only one way - making active players true partners in the league as a whole, and giving them a fixed percentage of profits rather than revenues, with contracts structured in a fashion that guarantees individual players a piece of the player's "profit pie." If the league succeeds, the players prosper. If it doesn't, then the players are motivated to do whatever they can to make the business work in conjunction with the league, but at the same time you don't have teams folding left and right at the drop of a hat.

So if a team doesn't turn a profit the players don't get paid? It has been known for teams to lose money even before salaries. How do you expect to get players if they aren't guaranteed some pay. I understand that none of these guys in the league are necessarily playing for the money now but you do have to compensate somewhat for the time they have to give up to play in the league.

Well, it's relatively simple actually, in that unless the franchise is cooking the books or so grossly mismanaged that those responsible could be sued, it's pretty near impossible for an indoor football club to lose money based on fixed operating costs in the size market an AFL, or even AF2 team would be placed in. Case in point - here in Raleigh, NC, a city which held an AFL team at one time and has a population base of around 400,000, I could launch an indoor football franchise for just under $300,000, and have fixed per-game operating costs of just under $ 5,000 per game (yes, that's an accurate number - $ 5,000 per game - and it's one I've documented, as some friends and I once bandied about the concept of applying for an AIFA franchise). To break-even (for the players' purposes anyway) under my type of plan, and presuming an average ticket price of $10 a seat, the team would have to draw... 500 fans.

Fill a 5,000 seat arena at $10 a head and you're carving up $ 50,000 less the fixed operating expenses, with the players collectively getting a fixed percentage of that figure. Now obviously my numbers here are low (the AFL doesn't have an average ticket price of only $10), but it illustrates the concept. You'd essentially be making the league a sort of throwback to the old days of baseball - guys playing who have other jobs but are earning some extra bucks on the gridiron.

Plus again, this would be part of a plan that networks the various cities' teams, so in addition to the revenue they'd be splitting up from their own home gate, they'd ultimately receive a small portion of the gate from each of the league's other cities.

[Herk]

It needs cost containment with respect to players. This can be assured only one way - making active players true partners in the league as a whole, and giving them a fixed percentage of profits rather than revenues, with contracts structured in a fashion that guarantees individual players a piece of the player's "profit pie." If the league succeeds, the players prosper. If it doesn't, then the players are motivated to do whatever they can to make the business work in conjunction with the league, but at the same time you don't have teams folding left and right at the drop of a hat.

So if a team doesn't turn a profit the players don't get paid? It has been known for teams to lose money even before salaries. How do you expect to get players if they aren't guaranteed some pay. I understand that none of these guys in the league are necessarily playing for the money now but you do have to compensate somewhat for the time they have to give up to play in the league.

Well, it's relatively simple actually, in that unless the franchise is cooking the books or so grossly mismanaged that those responsible could be sued, it's pretty near impossible for an indoor football club to lose money based on fixed operating costs in the size market an AFL, or even AF2 team would be placed in. Case in point - here in Raleigh, NC, a city which held an AFL team at one time and has a population base of around 400,000, I could launch an indoor football franchise for just under $300,000, and have fixed per-game operating costs of just under $ 5,000 per game (yes, that's an accurate number - $ 5,000 per game - and it's one I've documented, as some friends and I once bandied about the concept of applying for an AIFA franchise). To break-even (for the players' purposes anyway) under my type of plan, and presuming an average ticket price of $10 a seat, the team would have to draw... 500 fans.

Fill a 5,000 seat arena at $10 a head and you're carving up $ 50,000 less the fixed operating expenses, with the players collectively getting a fixed percentage of that figure. Now obviously my numbers here are low (the AFL doesn't have an average ticket price of only $10), but it illustrates the concept. You'd essentially be making the league a sort of throwback to the old days of baseball - guys playing who have other jobs but are earning some extra bucks on the gridiron.

Plus again, this would be part of a plan that networks the various cities' teams, so in addition to the revenue they'd be splitting up from their own home gate, they'd ultimately receive a small portion of the gate from each of the league's other cities.

Does this $5,000 a game number include arena rental fees AND Front office and gameday staff salaries?? Does it also factor in some of the marketing expenses you will incur (you can't just run a team and expect people to come)??

[Texasrangers13]

Does it also include Franchising Fees, and Taxes imposed by the city? Its a great concept, but your numbers are unrealistic in the end. What about player salaries? Insurance?

[Mac the Knife]

The numbers I posted are obviously hypothetical, and obviously the term 'profit' is in this case a matter that's subject to negotiation and/or interpretation. I should've used 'gate receipts' in my original post; that's perhaps the better yardstick to use here. Nonetheless a direct tie-in between revenues and player salaries (with a locked-in percentage paid after the fact, rather than a salary cap predicated on a prior year's income) is what's in order.

[Mac the Knife]

It needs cost containment with respect to players. This can be assured only one way - making active players true partners in the league as a whole, and giving them a fixed percentage of profits rather than revenues, with contracts structured in a fashion that guarantees individual players a piece of the player's "profit pie." If the league succeeds, the players prosper. If it doesn't, then the players are motivated to do whatever they can to make the business work in conjunction with the league, but at the same time you don't have teams folding left and right at the drop of a hat.

So if a team doesn't turn a profit the players don't get paid? It has been known for teams to lose money even before salaries. How do you expect to get players if they aren't guaranteed some pay. I understand that none of these guys in the league are necessarily playing for the money now but you do have to compensate somewhat for the time they have to give up to play in the league.

Well, it's relatively simple actually, in that unless the franchise is cooking the books or so grossly mismanaged that those responsible could be sued, it's pretty near impossible for an indoor football club to lose money based on fixed operating costs in the size market an AFL, or even AF2 team would be placed in. Case in point - here in Raleigh, NC, a city which held an AFL team at one time and has a population base of around 400,000, I could launch an indoor football franchise for just under $300,000, and have fixed per-game operating costs of just under $ 5,000 per game (yes, that's an accurate number - $ 5,000 per game - and it's one I've documented, as some friends and I once bandied about the concept of applying for an AIFA franchise). To break-even (for the players' purposes anyway) under my type of plan, and presuming an average ticket price of $10 a seat, the team would have to draw... 500 fans.

Fill a 5,000 seat arena at $10 a head and you're carving up $ 50,000 less the fixed operating expenses, with the players collectively getting a fixed percentage of that figure. Now obviously my numbers here are low (the AFL doesn't have an average ticket price of only $10), but it illustrates the concept. You'd essentially be making the league a sort of throwback to the old days of baseball - guys playing who have other jobs but are earning some extra bucks on the gridiron.

Plus again, this would be part of a plan that networks the various cities' teams, so in addition to the revenue they'd be splitting up from their own home gate, they'd ultimately receive a small portion of the gate from each of the league's other cities.

Does this $5,000 a game number include arena rental fees AND Front office and gameday staff salaries?? Does it also factor in some of the marketing expenses you will incur (you can't just run a team and expect people to come)??

Note what I highlighted above: "fixed per-game operating costs." That's arena rent and appropriate gameday staffing (security personnel, concessions, parking, etc.) It doesn't include marketing costs, office staff expenses, or anything beyond gameday operations. Those expenses would be noteworthy of course, but they're not fixed costs - they fluctuate depending on a variety of factors, none of which directly involve the players and their ability to put asses in the seats to the same extent putting a quality on-field product does.

[gueman]

In another thread a few months back, I said that it would be better to be the owner of a second tier sport in a mid market city were your competition for the sports entertainment dollar is not as diluted, than to own the same team in a top 20 city. Some called me a fool and said I would go bankrupt. But look at the situation the AFL is in now. They tried to expand/move teams to NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, et al. It had a good thing going in the smaller cities but chased the almighty national TV $$$. The league and teams would be much stronger if they would have stuck to what worked. Sure there is a lot more to this than what we all know, and most likely don't as well.

[roxfan00]

Update about the AFL from the Denver Post.

Market may sack arena football

By Irv Moss

The Denver Post

The Arena Football League, which includes the Colorado Crush, faces possible dissolution unless it secures an infusion of money by Dec. 19, according to two sources with knowledge of the league's troubles.

If the league is unable to secure financing, "we will explore other options with our team owners," according to Chris McCloskey, senior vice president of communications for the AFL. He did not say what those options include.

The Crush has played in Denver for six years and won the Arena Bowl championship in 2005, defeating Georgia 51-48.

"The business model for the league is broken," said Michael Young, Crush executive vice president. "If the rug is pulled out from under us, it's pulled out from under us."

Should the 21-year-old AFL find a way to start another season, Young said, the Crush would play.

"The only way this team would fold is if we disagree with the direction the league is going," Young said. "If there is a league schedule, of course we'll be playing in the 2009 season, and we'll be playing in Denver."

The AFL has become increasingly unstable in the past year. David Baker resigned as commissioner in July and hasn't been replaced. The New Orleans franchise folded unexpectedly after the 2008 season, and the dispersal draft of VooDoo players has been postponed three times.

The league issued a statement recently saying: "The AFL is working on long-term structural improvements which have unfortunately delayed some events, such as the release of the 2009 schedule, the dispersal draft, and the beginning (of) free agency. We ask our fans to be patient a little longer while we finalize our long-term improvements."

Young said it's his understanding that the AFL has been in talks with Platinum Equity Group for financial help. Platinum Equity officials have visited each of the 16 franchises to look at the books.

"Last year was our best year financially," Young said. "But the league had its worst year (financially). We understand the Platinum group submitted a letter of intent to invest but then backed away from the deal."

The Crush averaged 11,909 fans per game in 2008. Its high-water attendance mark was 17,427 in 2003, its first season. The AFL, which began in 1987, averaged 12,957 fans per game last season.

If it folds, it would be the second NFL feeder system to go under in two years. NFL Europe folded in 2007.

Ownership stakes in the Crush are divided among Pat Bowlen, who owns the Broncos; Stan Kroenke, who owns the Nuggets and Avalanche and provides an arena to play in, the Pepsi Center; and John Elway, the Hall of Fame Broncos quarterback who is the Crush's chief executive. Elway could not be reached for comment Sunday.

Crush lineman Kyle Moore- Brown said the players are willing to take a pay cut if it helps keep the league afloat. He is a 14-year AFL veteran and a member of the players union board of directors.

"We have discussed as a board of directors that we will do whatever is needed to save jobs," Moore-Brown said.

The Crush has 14 players under contract for 2009, including quarterback John Dutton. Another nine players have committed to coach Mike Dailey but won't be signed until the league's future is determined.

Denver Post

[Mac the Knife]

Funny; Colorado's being rumored as among the first teams that'll shutter its doors.

[Ez Street]

Elway is just pissed he's not commish.

[Mac the Knife]

I read somewhere that the patent on the game has expired; can someone verify that?

[fkaKrock5cent]

I read somewhere that the patent on the game has expired; can someone verify that?

I think thats right. I bet someone's using this as leverage one way or the other.

[Gary]

Elway is just pissed he's not commish.

Why so he can ruin the game even more and Mac you are right the trademark has expired. I know they were trying to get the sport trademarked again, but with the troubles they are having it may be a while before that happens

[Ez Street]

Elway is just pissed he's not commish.

Why so he can ruin the game even more and Mac you are right the trademark has expired. I know they were trying to get the sport trademarked again, but with the troubles they are having it may be a while before that happens

I'm not as Arena League savvy as some of you, so can you tell me what he did that's so detramental?

I always here Elway/Bon Jovi bashing like they are the Anti-Christ.

Just curious.

[BB61]

The patent expired on the 20th of September, 2007. So it's been dead for about a year. I wonder if / when the other leagues will pounce on that opportunity.

Originally, I heard that Colorado would make an announcement that they weren't coming back today, and I have the feeling that if they go, Dallas and Georgia aren't far behind.

For the record, the teams that we haven't heard from a "they're rumored to fold" standpoint are Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, Arizona, and Cleveland. This would go with the "six or so teams are trying to keep things together" argument.