Arena Football League reschedules draft, again...

[Sodboy13]

Couple of notes from that article:

- There are actually 17 votes in play - one for each team, plus one representing the patent holders. So it takes 13 votes to fold.

- According to Marcum, Chicago has switched sides to move in favor of suspension, making it 11-6. To me, this says an awful lot. Chicago's been drawing 15K+ a game for some time now, and the ownership is non-NFL - Ditka is just a showpiece up front with a minor percentage. The meat and potatoes of the ownership also owns the AHL Wolves, and they're no fools when it comes to successfully operating a fringe sport in a major market.

If the Rush are bailing at this juncture, that either means there's a more viable league being developed in the shadows, or the last glimmer of sustainability just faded out. And either way, I'm thinking there's no way the AFL sees January.

[rams80]

AFL suspends operations, says goodbye cruel world.

[PittsburghSucks]

Wow that sucks!!!

The Gladiators were the only good football team we had in Cleveland.

[-kj]

Wow that sucks!!!

The Gladiators were the only good football team we had in Cleveland.

There's always the Cleveland City Stars.

[Mac the Knife]

That's nothing short of lame. They completely jerked around their most loyal fans with this debacle, and now they've pissed off their players by suspending league ops a day before a deadline mandated by their CBA regarding compensation if a team ceases operations. They aren't coming back in all likelihood, but if they do, who in the hell's going to play for them and/or support them?

[DarkJourney]

Wow that sucks!!!

The Gladiators were the only good football team we had in Cleveland.

The SaberCats were the only good football team we had in the Bay Area.

[sc49erfan15]

Wow that sucks!!!

The Gladiators were the only good football team we had in Cleveland.

The SaberCats were the only good football team we had in the Bay Area.

[scooter13]

Wow that sucks!!!

The Gladiators were the only good football team we had in Cleveland.

The SaberCats were the only good football team we had in the Bay Area.

Oh yeah? Well the Detroit Drive have been gone for 14 years, and they are STILL the best football team in Detroit.

[Gary]

This does suck, but everyone have faith. Hopefully they work out all the kinks and we have the 2010 season

[Mac the Knife]

Why? Let them go under, and stay under. A new league, or an existing one, will emerge as the premier one... or alternately a bunch of regional leagues will crop up that'll fill the void, providing a decent level of quality sports entertainment for comparatively low cost.

[Gary]

Why because i've been following the Arena League since the age of 8. Fell in love with it. I want to see it come back in some form of capacity in 2010. I don't want to see it fail. But if they do I have a feeling that the AF2 will become the new Arena Football League or change it's name and become the premeire league. But at the same time I have a feeling that the teams who did vote to keep the league going for 2009 will leave and form their own league if the league does not come back

[Ez Street]

I agree with Mac.

This "could" be better off in the end. It's obvious the AFL had a bad financial model anyways, why try to continue.

Cut your losses and start over.

I can only hope this helps the APFL become a little more legit, God knows they need it. But I'm not holding my breath.

AF2, IFL and AIFL seem to be ok, maybe they will become better.

[Sodboy13]

Well, there it is. This league is done and done. I wouldn't be surprised to see several of the more successful/solvent teams pop up with their own circuit in 2010, if not late spring/early summer. But this horribly mismanaged "Arena Football League," as we know it, just took a permanent dirt nap.

I also think it's funny how the source in the Plain Dealer story is so irrationally confident about 2010, and even mentions expansion to Pittsburgh and Washington. I was instantly reminded of the XFL scouting Detroit and Washington as expansion cities for 2002, a couple weeks before the whole thing blew up.

So, Mac, let's talk reorganization...

EDIT: The league has officially let us know that the sky is, in fact, pink.

[Gary]

I see Arizona, Tampa Bay, San Jose, Orlando, Los Angeles, and New York popping up to start a new league, if not this year, possibly 2010. Will we see expansion teams with the new league? Who knows

[rams80]

I see Arizona, Tampa Bay, San Jose, Orlando, Los Angeles, and New York popping up to start a new league, if not this year, possibly 2010. Will we see expansion teams with the new league? Who knows

I will point out one flaw in the "breakaway" plan. The AFL owns all the team identity packages. So all six teams would have to invest in rebranding in order to pull off a break. And it would have to be a legitimately new identity, not just the San Jose CyberKats or something along those lines.

Have fun getting the casual fans interested in the Orlando Kittens.

[Mac the Knife]

Actually Rams, the identity-related issues are negotiable points - the teams could probably make a deal to keep their identities pretty easily all things considered. As things are now though, the AFL brand as a whole may just be too tarnished to salvage, even at the team level. The level of anger and frustration over the way this was handled seems to run pretty deep among hard-core fans of the league, even moreso than what was expressed back when the NHL killed a season. "You're dead to me, Fredo" seems to be the best way to describe it, and as someone who attended the first-ever AFL game as well as the inaugural ArenaBowl, I have to say I'm among them.

That being said, Sodboy, it's time not for a reorganization of what's failed, but to launch anew while at the same time reaching back to the old:

• "Gridiron League," a new, 10-team indoor circuit using the original AFL (previously patented but now open) playing rules, including "ironman" football with limited substitution.
  
• Placing franchises in markets that aren't ridiculously small, but in which the Gridiron League team has a real opportunity to be among the top two pro teams in town (Grand Rapids is a perfect example of this, as would places such as Raleigh, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, etc.).
  
• A simple, somewhat socialistic salary structure that is based on live gate attendance, so that as the league prospers so do its players.
  
• A comprehensive slate of games on television, but broadcast on several smaller outlets and regionally rather than on an NBC or perhaps even an ESPN.
  
• A single-entity structure, "Gridiron League, Inc.," which would be a publicly traded company (albeit with ownership restrictions that prevent anyone from holding more than 5% of the shares), and in which "GLI licensees" would operate their respective clubs as any pro sports league, but would share revenues, across the board, with their brethren and GLI itself - all for one, one for all so to speak.
  
• No expansion for at least the first three years, no matter what. After that, measured expansion if it's demonstrated that (1) the business model in place works, and (2) the new cities being added are capable of at least breaking even within the first three years. Part of AFL's problem was that even in the early days, they would add franchises at the drop of a hat.
  

[TBGKon]

Actually Rams, the identity-related issues are negotiable points - the teams could probably make a deal to keep their identities pretty easily all things considered. As things are now though, the AFL brand as a whole may just be too tarnished to salvage, even at the team level. The level of anger and frustration over the way this was handled seems to run pretty deep among hard-core fans of the league, even moreso than what was expressed back when the NHL killed a season. "You're dead to me, Fredo" seems to be the best way to describe it, and as someone who attended the first-ever AFL game as well as the inaugural ArenaBowl, I have to say I'm among them.

That being said, Sodboy, it's time not for a reorganization of what's failed, but to launch anew while at the same time reaching back to the old:

• "Gridiron League," a new, 10-team indoor circuit using the original AFL (previously patented but now open) playing rules, including "ironman" football with limited substitution.
  
• Placing franchises in markets that aren't ridiculously small, but in which the Gridiron League team has a real opportunity to be among the top two pro teams in town (Grand Rapids is a perfect example of this, as would places such as Raleigh, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, etc.).
  
• A simple, somewhat socialistic salary structure that is based on live gate attendance, so that as the league prospers so do its players.
  
• A comprehensive slate of games on television, but broadcast on several smaller outlets and regionally rather than on an NBC or perhaps even an ESPN.
  
• A single-entity structure, "Gridiron League, Inc.," which would be a publicly traded company (albeit with ownership restrictions that prevent anyone from holding more than 5% of the shares), and in which "GLI licensees" would operate their respective clubs as any pro sports league, but would share revenues, across the board, with their brethren and GLI itself - all for one, one for all so to speak.
  
• No expansion for at least the first three years, no matter what. After that, measured expansion if it's demonstrated that (1) the business model in place works, and (2) the new cities being added are capable of at least breaking even within the first three years. Part of AFL's problem was that even in the early days, they would add franchises at the drop of a hat.
  

Great idea, go back to something similar to AFL's roots. I could potentially see some of the larger market AF2 make the jump (Oklahoma City, Bossier-Shreveport) as well as some of the potential future expansion AF2 teams (Toledo, Buffalo, Albuquerque according to Wikipedia)

[Sodboy13]

• "Gridiron League," a new, 10-team indoor circuit using the original AFL (previously patented but now open) playing rules, including "ironman" football with limited substitution.
  
• Placing franchises in markets that aren't ridiculously small, but in which the Gridiron League team has a real opportunity to be among the top two pro teams in town (Grand Rapids is a perfect example of this, as would places such as Raleigh, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, etc.).
  
• A simple, somewhat socialistic salary structure that is based on live gate attendance, so that as the league prospers so do its players.
  
• A comprehensive slate of games on television, but broadcast on several smaller outlets and regionally rather than on an NBC or perhaps even an ESPN.
  
• A single-entity structure, "Gridiron League, Inc.," which would be a publicly traded company (albeit with ownership restrictions that prevent anyone from holding more than 5% of the shares), and in which "GLI licensees" would operate their respective clubs as any pro sports league, but would share revenues, across the board, with their brethren and GLI itself - all for one, one for all so to speak.
  
• No expansion for at least the first three years, no matter what. After that, measured expansion if it's demonstrated that (1) the business model in place works, and (2) the new cities being added are capable of at least breaking even within the first three years. Part of AFL's problem was that even in the early days, they would add franchises at the drop of a hat.
  

I think you have a lot of willing and competent ownership in sustainable markets already in place. This bodes well for (re)starting a league. Consider the following existing markets, which pretty much meet your criteria:

1. San Jose

2. Orlando

3. Grand Rapids

4. New Orleans

5. Columbus

To those four, I would add three major-market hubs, which have also exhibited stability and competence in their ownership:

1. Chicago

2. Philadelphia

3. Los Angeles

Rounding out the ten from existing markets, but not necessarily meeting your "second team in town" goal:

1. Tampa Bay - arguably the 4th team in town given the Rays' success, but has deeper roots than everyone in town except the Bucs, and a revitalized ownership.

2. Arizona - a question mark, as interest has flagged in what is now a 4-sport town as the team has struggled. Still, a 17-season track record, and the new owner from last year seems gung-ho.

I'd say Georgia, Dallas, and Colorado are all dead - those NFL owners are done, though I genuinely can see Benson coming back in New Orleans. Utah apparently had some astounding inflation of the gate during its days. Kansas City seemed to be withering rather than growing this past season. Cleveland had some good numbers this year, but I can't believe Ferraro would want to carry on - and if I were operating a league, I wouldn't want him in. And New York was never a success - it just stuck around and floundered. That's three failures in a market not meant for this sport to begin with, and I consider it done. This league can make it without New York - in fact, it could theoretically make it without Chicago, Philly, or L.A. - but if there are already successes in place in major markets, why look those gift horses in the mouth?

In regard to the television end, yes, every team should be able to line up deals with their local FSN/CSN-type cable network. But a small national deal is easily within reach, at Versus. They desperately want more programming, and since just about everything else has been gobbled up by Disney, this could work out nicely for the non-NHL portion of their year. Return the league to an April-through-August affair, and allow teams to have games on Friday nights and Saturdays again, if that's what's proven to be the big draw in the past. And if you get the Versus deal, you've got potential for showcase games on through the weekend, and maybe even on Monday night - a night traditionally light on the baseball schedule.

I do see one potential hiccup in the "players get a chunk of the gate" structure: what's to prevent a spend-crazy owner from signing players by guaranteeing full houses every night, and simply buying up the empty seats every week? I realize the most obvious answer is "keep any idiot like that 500 miles away from the league office's doorstep," and I think the ownership groups I have listed above would certainly contribute to avoiding that kind of scenario. However, the idea of such subterfuge on a more subtle level seems like a possibility.

Also: say you're midway through year two, and between two and four of your franchises are really hurting. Do you start subsidizing them to carry on through that third year regardless, since you want the facade of stability?

[Gary]

• "Gridiron League," a new, 10-team indoor circuit using the original AFL (previously patented but now open) playing rules, including "ironman" football with limited substitution.
  
• Placing franchises in markets that aren't ridiculously small, but in which the Gridiron League team has a real opportunity to be among the top two pro teams in town (Grand Rapids is a perfect example of this, as would places such as Raleigh, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, etc.).
  
• A simple, somewhat socialistic salary structure that is based on live gate attendance, so that as the league prospers so do its players.
  
• A comprehensive slate of games on television, but broadcast on several smaller outlets and regionally rather than on an NBC or perhaps even an ESPN.
  
• A single-entity structure, "Gridiron League, Inc.," which would be a publicly traded company (albeit with ownership restrictions that prevent anyone from holding more than 5% of the shares), and in which "GLI licensees" would operate their respective clubs as any pro sports league, but would share revenues, across the board, with their brethren and GLI itself - all for one, one for all so to speak.
  
• No expansion for at least the first three years, no matter what. After that, measured expansion if it's demonstrated that (1) the business model in place works, and (2) the new cities being added are capable of at least breaking even within the first three years. Part of AFL's problem was that even in the early days, they would add franchises at the drop of a hat.
  

I think you have a lot of willing and competent ownership in sustainable markets already in place. This bodes well for (re)starting a league. Consider the following existing markets, which pretty much meet your criteria:

1. San Jose

2. Orlando

3. Grand Rapids

4. New Orleans

5. Columbus

To those four, I would add three major-market hubs, which have also exhibited stability and competence in their ownership:

1. Chicago

2. Philadelphia

3. Los Angeles

Rounding out the ten from existing markets, but not necessarily meeting your "second team in town" goal:

1. Tampa Bay - arguably the 4th team in town given the Rays' success, but has deeper roots than everyone in town except the Bucs, and a revitalized ownership.

2. Arizona - a question mark, as interest has flagged in what is now a 4-sport town as the team has struggled. Still, a 17-season track record, and the new owner from last year seems gung-ho.

I'd say Georgia, Dallas, and Colorado are all dead - those NFL owners are done, though I genuinely can see Benson coming back in New Orleans. Utah apparently had some astounding inflation of the gate during its days. Kansas City seemed to be withering rather than growing this past season. Cleveland had some good numbers this year, but I can't believe Ferraro would want to carry on - and if I were operating a league, I wouldn't want him in. And New York was never a success - it just stuck around and floundered. That's three failures in a market not meant for this sport to begin with, and I consider it done. This league can make it without New York - in fact, it could theoretically make it without Chicago, Philly, or L.A. - but if there are already successes in place in major markets, why look those gift horses in the mouth?

In regard to the television end, yes, every team should be able to line up deals with their local FSN/CSN-type cable network. But a small national deal is easily within reach, at Versus. They desperately want more programming, and since just about everything else has been gobbled up by Disney, this could work out nicely for the non-NHL portion of their year. Return the league to an April-through-August affair, and allow teams to have games on Friday nights and Saturdays again, if that's what's proven to be the big draw in the past. And if you get the Versus deal, you've got potential for showcase games on through the weekend, and maybe even on Monday night - a night traditionally light on the baseball schedule.

I do see one potential hiccup in the "players get a chunk of the gate" structure: what's to prevent a spend-crazy owner from signing players by guaranteeing full houses every night, and simply buying up the empty seats every week? I realize the most obvious answer is "keep any idiot like that 500 miles away from the league office's doorstep," and I think the ownership groups I have listed above would certainly contribute to avoiding that kind of scenario. However, the idea of such subterfuge on a more subtle level seems like a possibility.

Also: say you're midway through year two, and between two and four of your franchises are really hurting. Do you start subsidizing them to carry on through that third year regardless, since you want the facade of stability?

I would add Tampa Bay and Arizona as they are 2 of the oldest franchises in the AFL and make it a 10 team league. But as far as Bochy leaving, well he was one of the owners in Orlando before leaving to take the "General Partner" for the Rattlers. The Majority Owner is still leading the charge and has already stated that he will keep the Rattlers in tact even if the league does die(radio interview). So this tells me that there could be something in the works

[DMadSport]

Well the Detroit Drive have been gone for 14 years, and they are STILL the best football team in Detroit.

Lest you forget you had the Grand Rapids Rampage on the other side of Michigan. They had more Arena Bowl titles than the Lions have had Super Bowl appearances.

And they seemed like a big deal in the city, if the front of Monday morning's Grand Rapids Press was any indication.