Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Columbus AUDL Franchise For Sale
326 views
Skip to first unread message
Chris
Aug 13, 2012, 9:30:04 PM8/13/12
to
So the first season of the AUDL has just wrapped up and on
the back of that it looks like a couple of team owners have
decided they don't want to run an AUDL team in the 2013
season:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203855204088609332234.0004b24ad19e1de220961&msa=0&ll=42.032974,-90.791016&spn=35.383476,78.662109
This was always going to happen to some degree, given that
the whole league was a very unknown quantity, and life and
business circumstances are always going to change so I
imagine there will always be turnover, but I'm interested to
see if it will only be Columbus from the 2012 season that
opts to try and sell.
As a bit of a sidenote it also looks like the Cleveland
owner has decided to sell, before his team starts the 2013
season.
All very interesting developments, what's everyone else
reckon?
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
the back of that it looks like a couple of team owners have
decided they don't want to run an AUDL team in the 2013
season:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203855204088609332234.0004b24ad19e1de220961&msa=0&ll=42.032974,-90.791016&spn=35.383476,78.662109
This was always going to happen to some degree, given that
the whole league was a very unknown quantity, and life and
business circumstances are always going to change so I
imagine there will always be turnover, but I'm interested to
see if it will only be Columbus from the 2012 season that
opts to try and sell.
As a bit of a sidenote it also looks like the Cleveland
owner has decided to sell, before his team starts the 2013
season.
All very interesting developments, what's everyone else
reckon?
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
sa...@cornell.edu
Aug 14, 2012, 4:14:07 PM8/14/12
to
I "reckon" everyone realizes its a sinking ship that sues
its own teams, hands out forfeits for teams not wanting to
travel, and had a finals game in attendance of 300 in a
stadium that probably cost them a minimum of 5 grand to rent
for the 3 hours. And that expansion will only lead to even
more forfeits over having to make long trips, more teams
getting to the playoffs that aren't actually the best, and
presumably, more inconveniently located and unattended
finals games....
To be honest, I think the owners who bought in the first
place had to be on something, so they probably won't let a
little thing like obvious signs of impending failure stop
them from pressing forward.
As for it "only" being Columbus... is the CT Constitution
even a thing anymore? I mean, that owner might not sell, but
if his team wasn't allowed to take part in the playoffs and
Josh Moore seems to be content in pretending they don't
exist at all.... then aren't they sort of out too?
Are teams like Buffalo and RI really going to continue in
2013 when there's no way they did anything but lose money,
and will only do worst next year as their "100-mile bubbles"
are broken into by teams like Boston and Toronto? I mean,
the only reason I can see them holding onto them cause they
realize no one else will buy them?
its own teams, hands out forfeits for teams not wanting to
travel, and had a finals game in attendance of 300 in a
stadium that probably cost them a minimum of 5 grand to rent
for the 3 hours. And that expansion will only lead to even
more forfeits over having to make long trips, more teams
getting to the playoffs that aren't actually the best, and
presumably, more inconveniently located and unattended
finals games....
To be honest, I think the owners who bought in the first
place had to be on something, so they probably won't let a
little thing like obvious signs of impending failure stop
them from pressing forward.
As for it "only" being Columbus... is the CT Constitution
even a thing anymore? I mean, that owner might not sell, but
if his team wasn't allowed to take part in the playoffs and
Josh Moore seems to be content in pretending they don't
exist at all.... then aren't they sort of out too?
Are teams like Buffalo and RI really going to continue in
2013 when there's no way they did anything but lose money,
and will only do worst next year as their "100-mile bubbles"
are broken into by teams like Boston and Toronto? I mean,
the only reason I can see them holding onto them cause they
realize no one else will buy them?
mgd.mitch
Aug 14, 2012, 4:30:05 PM8/14/12
to
While i agree this first season hasn't gone well and the
infighting is pathetic, I will at least give the second
season some credit for the expansion teams being located in
cities with established ultimate communities. Philly seems
to have had the best attendance and performance, and I would
directly credit that towards it being a town with an
established community. Now, whether Philly is sustainable
with current levels, that is the real question.
infighting is pathetic, I will at least give the second
season some credit for the expansion teams being located in
cities with established ultimate communities. Philly seems
to have had the best attendance and performance, and I would
directly credit that towards it being a town with an
established community. Now, whether Philly is sustainable
with current levels, that is the real question.
thefan
Aug 14, 2012, 11:25:04 PM8/14/12
to
Quote:
game in the Silverdome was probably a bit optimistic, i also
think people might be overestimating the cost of renting
that place out. it was sold to some investors or somebody a
few years back for $300K. while "the Silverdome" sounds
impressive and expensive, the mortgage on that place would
be somewhere in the 2 grand a month range given my limited
(zero) knowledge of the loan agreement, interest rate, etc.
so 5 grand for an afternoon when there was probably a deal
worked out for the the season is likely not what they spent.
> attendance of 300 in a stadium that probably cost them a
> minimum of 5 grand to rent for the 3 hours.
while your point is well taken that holding the championship
> minimum of 5 grand to rent for the 3 hours.
game in the Silverdome was probably a bit optimistic, i also
think people might be overestimating the cost of renting
that place out. it was sold to some investors or somebody a
few years back for $300K. while "the Silverdome" sounds
impressive and expensive, the mortgage on that place would
be somewhere in the 2 grand a month range given my limited
(zero) knowledge of the loan agreement, interest rate, etc.
so 5 grand for an afternoon when there was probably a deal
worked out for the the season is likely not what they spent.
mgd.mitch
Aug 15, 2012, 8:15:04 AM8/15/12
to
I would say spending $1000 for a much smaller venue would
have been wiser than using the silverdome for free at those
attendance levels. At this point in the venture, you are
trying to market the idea of going to a game of ultimate,
and the appearance of literally 0.4% of seating capacity
looks absolutely terrible. And their goal only put it at
~10%.
have been wiser than using the silverdome for free at those
attendance levels. At this point in the venture, you are
trying to market the idea of going to a game of ultimate,
and the appearance of literally 0.4% of seating capacity
looks absolutely terrible. And their goal only put it at
~10%.
thefan
Aug 15, 2012, 12:55:04 PM8/15/12
to
true enough.
Manzell Blakeley
Aug 15, 2012, 1:50:05 PM8/15/12
to
1-year operating losses aren't really relevant; I think the
idea that most owners had were to run a league in the red
for as long as it took to get some sort of media deal, take
their share and sell out. This arrangement makes sense if
you thought Josh Moore was a good businessperson who could
pull off such a deal in a few years - and if you thought
ultimate was ready for an a big uptick in popularity.
The rise in franchise cost from 2k to 10k in year two is
really insane. Potential/Actual owners would do well to
invest that money directly into their own teams and form
their own league with a commissioner who is paid by the
teams; rather than a league owner who has already collected
as much as he can from each franchise and who's only revenue
stream is through selling of new licenses.
idea that most owners had were to run a league in the red
for as long as it took to get some sort of media deal, take
their share and sell out. This arrangement makes sense if
you thought Josh Moore was a good businessperson who could
pull off such a deal in a few years - and if you thought
ultimate was ready for an a big uptick in popularity.
The rise in franchise cost from 2k to 10k in year two is
really insane. Potential/Actual owners would do well to
invest that money directly into their own teams and form
their own league with a commissioner who is paid by the
teams; rather than a league owner who has already collected
as much as he can from each franchise and who's only revenue
stream is through selling of new licenses.
chainlightning
Aug 15, 2012, 10:15:04 PM8/15/12
to
The sudden appearance of Cleveland as the number 17 team in
the northeast division is very interesting. It is a new team
and immediately its for sale. Why would the AUDL sell a new
team only to see it put up for sale? Maybe this is the new
way that the AUDL sells teams?
Uh oh. Is Cleveland in the 100 mile radius of Detroit?
Connecticut seems to be still around and continues to engage
the league in that lawsuit and the effects of that suit
could change the number of new teams in the AUDL next
season. Between the Connecticut team and the Rhode Island
team, both in that lawsuit, the new teams in New York and
Boston could be stopped from beginning play in 2013.
Re the Championship Game, I read somewhere that the final
game at the Silverdome may have cost a lot more than $5,000,
maybe as much as $10,000.
Train
the northeast division is very interesting. It is a new team
and immediately its for sale. Why would the AUDL sell a new
team only to see it put up for sale? Maybe this is the new
way that the AUDL sells teams?
Uh oh. Is Cleveland in the 100 mile radius of Detroit?
Connecticut seems to be still around and continues to engage
the league in that lawsuit and the effects of that suit
could change the number of new teams in the AUDL next
season. Between the Connecticut team and the Rhode Island
team, both in that lawsuit, the new teams in New York and
Boston could be stopped from beginning play in 2013.
Re the Championship Game, I read somewhere that the final
game at the Silverdome may have cost a lot more than $5,000,
maybe as much as $10,000.
Train
Ryan
Aug 15, 2012, 11:20:04 PM8/15/12
to
trainultimate wrote on Wed, 15 August 2012 22:10
Potentially dumb question: If you own an AUDL franchise and
decide to sell, do you have to sell for what you paid? Or
can you sell it for whatever you want? If I buy a franchise
for $2000, can I try to sell it for like $15000 and make a
quick buck?
> Uh oh. Is Cleveland in the 100 mile radius of Detroit?
they're about 150 miles apart.
Potentially dumb question: If you own an AUDL franchise and
decide to sell, do you have to sell for what you paid? Or
can you sell it for whatever you want? If I buy a franchise
for $2000, can I try to sell it for like $15000 and make a
quick buck?
chainlightning
Aug 16, 2012, 7:55:04 AM8/16/12
to
Using the same tool that ultiworld used, the radius is under
100 miles because its not the driving distance, it looks
like its a straight line distance which goes across the
water.
I haven't seen anything in any of the published articles to
suggest that there are limitations on how much you can
resell territories for. Frankly, I'd go to the casino with
my money. I like those odds a whole lot better for making
money and those aren't very good.
Train
100 miles because its not the driving distance, it looks
like its a straight line distance which goes across the
water.
I haven't seen anything in any of the published articles to
suggest that there are limitations on how much you can
resell territories for. Frankly, I'd go to the casino with
my money. I like those odds a whole lot better for making
money and those aren't very good.
Train
Chris
Aug 16, 2012, 11:05:05 PM8/16/12
to
Franzia wrote on Wed, 15 August 2012 20:19
to pay, but I imagine that price would be $0 if it wasn't at
least close to turning a profit in the previous season.
It would probably sell like most businesses, ie some
multiple of earnings (profit), but if all costs were
considered none of the AUDL teams would have made any money
last season. Therefore it would be very hard to sell them
for anything...
As for your idea about flipping AUDL franchise licences - I
assume you could do that - the problem of course would be if
you are legally required to field a team in the league
should you not be able to sell the franchise (though I'm not
certain this is the case).
That said, if a critical mass of owners decide they can't
financially justify having teams in the league then the
league itself would dissolve, which would also make your
investment worth nothing.
This is actually why I started this thread... because now
the first season is over and everyone has been able to see
what sort of viability pro ultimate has now team owners can
make more informed decisions about what's the future
viability of their teams/league and if they want to continue
investing in their franchises or if they will just quit and
put their franchise payment down as a write off, and I
imagine this will go for the 2013 owners as well...
I suspect the fate of the AUDL will be decided by team
owners in the coming weeks and months...
> Potentially dumb question: If you own an AUDL franchise
> and decide to sell, do you have to sell for what you paid?
> Or can you sell it for whatever you want? If I buy a
> franchise for $2000, can I try to sell it for like $15000
> and make a quick buck?
I suspect you could sell it for whatever someone was willing
> and decide to sell, do you have to sell for what you paid?
> Or can you sell it for whatever you want? If I buy a
> franchise for $2000, can I try to sell it for like $15000
> and make a quick buck?
to pay, but I imagine that price would be $0 if it wasn't at
least close to turning a profit in the previous season.
It would probably sell like most businesses, ie some
multiple of earnings (profit), but if all costs were
considered none of the AUDL teams would have made any money
last season. Therefore it would be very hard to sell them
for anything...
As for your idea about flipping AUDL franchise licences - I
assume you could do that - the problem of course would be if
you are legally required to field a team in the league
should you not be able to sell the franchise (though I'm not
certain this is the case).
That said, if a critical mass of owners decide they can't
financially justify having teams in the league then the
league itself would dissolve, which would also make your
investment worth nothing.
This is actually why I started this thread... because now
the first season is over and everyone has been able to see
what sort of viability pro ultimate has now team owners can
make more informed decisions about what's the future
viability of their teams/league and if they want to continue
investing in their franchises or if they will just quit and
put their franchise payment down as a write off, and I
imagine this will go for the 2013 owners as well...
I suspect the fate of the AUDL will be decided by team
owners in the coming weeks and months...
Robert Dulabon
Aug 17, 2012, 10:05:51 AM8/17/12
to
Most sports franchises lose money for their owners. Why do people do
it then? Because it is the coolest thing you can do with your money
when you're really rich. Owners then make back a lot of their money
when they sell the team to the next wealthy man/woman that wants to be
able to say they own a sports team.
So if owners of teams in the big 4 US sports struggle to turn a
profit, why are we all surprised that AUDL owners failed to do so with
such a new venture? Sure, there were some missteps this season, but
the owners and commish have learned a lot. Being critical can be good
and, in the end, turn out a better product. But relax people. Give
some time to build the brand. A lot of these owners took a chance
because they saw something in the sport and thought it was worth
presenting in a professional manner. Or they wanted to say they own a
sports team. Either way, the community could do better at working with
them instead of immediately writing it off as a failure or threatening
to boycott the championship game.
As a player, I thought the league was great and have full intentions
of playing a second season. Aside from a CT forfeit, my play was not
affected by the business side of things at all. I got to go out and
get paid to play the game I love. How can someone complain about that?
And on a personal level, playing a single game at a set time in a set
location allowed my family to see me play more ultimate this AUDL
season than my previous 9 years of playing combined. It was great to
be able to finally share it with them. I like this presentation of the
sport and the potential for the league. I, for one, am excited for
Season 2.
-Rob Dulabon
Buffalo Hunters #21
it then? Because it is the coolest thing you can do with your money
when you're really rich. Owners then make back a lot of their money
when they sell the team to the next wealthy man/woman that wants to be
able to say they own a sports team.
So if owners of teams in the big 4 US sports struggle to turn a
profit, why are we all surprised that AUDL owners failed to do so with
such a new venture? Sure, there were some missteps this season, but
the owners and commish have learned a lot. Being critical can be good
and, in the end, turn out a better product. But relax people. Give
some time to build the brand. A lot of these owners took a chance
because they saw something in the sport and thought it was worth
presenting in a professional manner. Or they wanted to say they own a
sports team. Either way, the community could do better at working with
them instead of immediately writing it off as a failure or threatening
to boycott the championship game.
As a player, I thought the league was great and have full intentions
of playing a second season. Aside from a CT forfeit, my play was not
affected by the business side of things at all. I got to go out and
get paid to play the game I love. How can someone complain about that?
And on a personal level, playing a single game at a set time in a set
location allowed my family to see me play more ultimate this AUDL
season than my previous 9 years of playing combined. It was great to
be able to finally share it with them. I like this presentation of the
sport and the potential for the league. I, for one, am excited for
Season 2.
-Rob Dulabon
Buffalo Hunters #21
mgd.mitch
Aug 17, 2012, 10:35:04 AM8/17/12
to
Robert Dulabon wrote on Fri, 17 August 2012 10:05
saw widespread losses (NBA and NHL), you saw labor stoppages
that led to more financially appealing situations
(especially hockey). Baseball is a mixed bag. Some teams
are wildly profittable while others aren't. And what was
the result? Revenue sharing to help the struggling teams.
Owners are very much in it for the $, though they might
accept lower than accepted returns since it can be fun as
well. And as you said, many make big bucks when they sell.
As for enjoying your season, glad to hear it. I hope that
there is a future in a pro league, but it is going to have
to be in a profitable environment IMO. Mark Cuban, Jerry
Jones, and Daniel Snyder aren't going to be buying
franchises for fun any time soon.
> Most sports franchises lose money for their owners. Why
> do people do it then? Because it is the coolest thing you
> can do with your money when you're really rich. Owners
> then make back a lot of their money when they sell the
> team to the next wealthy man/woman that wants to be able
> to say they own a sports team.
The NFL is profitable for most owners. The sports where you
> do people do it then? Because it is the coolest thing you
> can do with your money when you're really rich. Owners
> then make back a lot of their money when they sell the
> team to the next wealthy man/woman that wants to be able
> to say they own a sports team.
saw widespread losses (NBA and NHL), you saw labor stoppages
that led to more financially appealing situations
(especially hockey). Baseball is a mixed bag. Some teams
are wildly profittable while others aren't. And what was
the result? Revenue sharing to help the struggling teams.
Owners are very much in it for the $, though they might
accept lower than accepted returns since it can be fun as
well. And as you said, many make big bucks when they sell.
As for enjoying your season, glad to hear it. I hope that
there is a future in a pro league, but it is going to have
to be in a profitable environment IMO. Mark Cuban, Jerry
Jones, and Daniel Snyder aren't going to be buying
franchises for fun any time soon.
Pippin
Aug 17, 2012, 11:11:16 AM8/17/12
to
A bit off track, but...I see the appeal of playing one game at a time
at a set location, but I don't understand why friends or family
couldn't watch you play otherwise (besides the fact that you might
live in Buffalo where there are not too many tournaments)?
I feel like people are often stating that they have a hard time
telling friends and family when they should come watch them play
ultimate. They often blame it on the weekend tournament schedule, and
explain that it is hard to tell people to show up any time between 9am
and 3 pm.
I have been playing since 2003 and I really never understood this
issue. It is pretty simple: look at your schedule for the weekend, and
tell all of your friends and family to come at the time of the game
you most want them to see. I don't tell my mom to show up whenever. I
tell her the time of what I think will be our best/most competitive
game of the day...and by some sort of miracle, she always shows up for
that game! Crazy, right.
-Pippin
7Express
at a set location, but I don't understand why friends or family
couldn't watch you play otherwise (besides the fact that you might
live in Buffalo where there are not too many tournaments)?
I feel like people are often stating that they have a hard time
telling friends and family when they should come watch them play
ultimate. They often blame it on the weekend tournament schedule, and
explain that it is hard to tell people to show up any time between 9am
and 3 pm.
I have been playing since 2003 and I really never understood this
issue. It is pretty simple: look at your schedule for the weekend, and
tell all of your friends and family to come at the time of the game
you most want them to see. I don't tell my mom to show up whenever. I
tell her the time of what I think will be our best/most competitive
game of the day...and by some sort of miracle, she always shows up for
that game! Crazy, right.
-Pippin
7Express
Robert Dulabon
Aug 17, 2012, 11:13:18 AM8/17/12
to
> Mark Cuban, Jerry
> Jones, and Daniel Snyder aren't going to be buying
> franchises for fun any time soon.
> --
Funny you should mention Mark Cuban. In the 2005-2006 season, the
> Jones, and Daniel Snyder aren't going to be buying
> franchises for fun any time soon.
> --
Dallas Mavericks had an operating loss of $24 million. Why did I
choose the 2005-2006 season? It was the easiest result to find on
Google. :)
But that was a time when he was working to make the team more
legitimate. And it worked. Sacrifice breeds success. And in the case
of owners of sports teams, a lot of the time that sacrifice comes from
their bank account.
Robert Dulabon
Aug 17, 2012, 11:20:53 AM8/17/12
to
Regarding the set location, I am from Erie and Buffalo is a quick
drive for my family to come up. Compare that to the tournaments I've
played in - Baltimore, Boulder, Austin, Seattle, Sarasota, Perth,
Prague, Venice. All a bit further of a trek.
As for the set time, humans are inherently lazy. If given an
opportunity to procrastinate, most will take it. So, if they miss the
11:00 am game of a tournament, there's a 1:00 pm game they can catch
instead. To someone not familiar with a tournament, that's just as
good. Give them one shot to see you play, they are more likely to be
there, or they will miss out entirely. That's my experience, anyway.
-Rob
drive for my family to come up. Compare that to the tournaments I've
played in - Baltimore, Boulder, Austin, Seattle, Sarasota, Perth,
Prague, Venice. All a bit further of a trek.
As for the set time, humans are inherently lazy. If given an
opportunity to procrastinate, most will take it. So, if they miss the
11:00 am game of a tournament, there's a 1:00 pm game they can catch
instead. To someone not familiar with a tournament, that's just as
good. Give them one shot to see you play, they are more likely to be
there, or they will miss out entirely. That's my experience, anyway.
-Rob
davidvatz
Aug 17, 2012, 3:05:04 PM8/17/12
to
Forbes does an annual review of US sports franchises, here
are some results from the 2012 roundup:
NBA - 15/30 (50%) of teams showed an operating profit, 22/30
(73%) showed an increase in franchise value
NHL - 12/30 (40%) of teams showed an operating profit, 23/30
(77%) showed an increase in franchise value
MLB - 27/30 (90%) of teams showed an operating profit, 28/30
(93%) showed an increase in franchise value
NFL - 30/32 (94%) of teams showed an operating profit, 23/32
(72%) showed an increase in franchise value
Not really sure if this says anything for the AUDL, just
putting some info out there.
I'm personally somewhat skeptical that the values of AUDL
franchises will continue to rise if operating profits remain
negative, and I'm not sure that operating profits will be
positive with the current model. Something like a major TV
deal could easily cause the value of a franchise to
skyrocket, so it's really a risk that the owners are
deciding to take - accept negative operating profit in the
near term for future potential growth, either by organic
market growth or some sort of "game-changer" like a media
contract.
are some results from the 2012 roundup:
NBA - 15/30 (50%) of teams showed an operating profit, 22/30
(73%) showed an increase in franchise value
NHL - 12/30 (40%) of teams showed an operating profit, 23/30
(77%) showed an increase in franchise value
MLB - 27/30 (90%) of teams showed an operating profit, 28/30
(93%) showed an increase in franchise value
NFL - 30/32 (94%) of teams showed an operating profit, 23/32
(72%) showed an increase in franchise value
Not really sure if this says anything for the AUDL, just
putting some info out there.
I'm personally somewhat skeptical that the values of AUDL
franchises will continue to rise if operating profits remain
negative, and I'm not sure that operating profits will be
positive with the current model. Something like a major TV
deal could easily cause the value of a franchise to
skyrocket, so it's really a risk that the owners are
deciding to take - accept negative operating profit in the
near term for future potential growth, either by organic
market growth or some sort of "game-changer" like a media
contract.
colinmcintyre
Aug 17, 2012, 3:30:04 PM8/17/12
to
Robert Dulabon wrote on Fri, 17 August 2012 10:05
> I got to go out and
> get paid to play the game I love.
I'm curious, was this the standard across teams? I heard a
> get paid to play the game I love.
lot of initial talk about how cool it would be to get paid
and be a professional athlete, but never heard about players
actually beind paid. Another potentially significant
expense item in the budget, when considering the viability
of a "professional" model.
Taking out the "professional" label, it's all interesting as
part of larger discussion about showcasing the sport, along
with NexGen, some of the Seattle Showcase games, D.C.
exhibitions at soccer matches, etc.
Pippin
Aug 17, 2012, 3:56:13 PM8/17/12
to
Constitution. From what I understand they were all paid various
amounts, but nearly every player had another job to fill outside of
showing up and playing ultimate. Things suchs as local outreach,
marketing, facebook, graphic design, sending out a weekly fan email,
ect.
-Pippin
mgd.mitch
Aug 17, 2012, 6:25:04 PM8/17/12
to
Robert Dulabon wrote on Fri, 17 August 2012 11:13
And the NBA owners locked out the players because the teams
were losing so much money. Seems they do in fact care about
money, not just having fun. And 20 seconds of googling
found plenty of information showing pro owners are making
money as a whole.
again, I'm glad you enjoyed your season and wish you and the
league the best of luck, but lets not kid ourselves. teams
need a road to profitability if the league is to survive.
were losing so much money. Seems they do in fact care about
money, not just having fun. And 20 seconds of googling
found plenty of information showing pro owners are making
money as a whole.
again, I'm glad you enjoyed your season and wish you and the
league the best of luck, but lets not kid ourselves. teams
need a road to profitability if the league is to survive.
bjm
Aug 17, 2012, 10:40:04 PM8/17/12
to
colinmcintyre wrote on Fri, 17 August 2012 15:29
could have a real conversation with them about it...
> I'm curious, was this the standard across teams? I
> heard a lot of initial talk about how cool it would be to
> get paid and be a professional athlete, but never heard
> about players actually beind paid. Another potentially
> significant expense item in the budget, when considering
> the viability of a "professional" model.
>
> Taking out the "professional" label, it's all
> interesting as part of larger discussion about showcasing
> the sport, along with NexGen, some of the Seattle Showcase
> games, D.C. exhibitions at soccer matches, etc.
If only you knew some people that played in the AUDL and you
> heard a lot of initial talk about how cool it would be to
> get paid and be a professional athlete, but never heard
> about players actually beind paid. Another potentially
> significant expense item in the budget, when considering
> the viability of a "professional" model.
>
> Taking out the "professional" label, it's all
> interesting as part of larger discussion about showcasing
> the sport, along with NexGen, some of the Seattle Showcase
> games, D.C. exhibitions at soccer matches, etc.
could have a real conversation with them about it...
mjevan...@comcast.net
Aug 20, 2012, 12:50:04 AM8/20/12
to
davidvatz wrote on Fri, 17 August 2012 15:04
I'm not sure why everyone keeps trying to compare the
inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
successes of the big 4 established major sports. Measured
against that yardstick, there's no way that the AUDL could
hope to be viewed favorably. What would be more
appropriate, and fair, is to compare the early days of these
sports and the growing pains and path to success that they
took.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Football_League
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nba#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nhl#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mlb#History
Lots of similarities here to what has taken place in the
AUDL's first season.
None of the AUDL owners I've spoken with had delusions of
the first season being profitable and that it would take
several seasons to grow the brand.
--
Mark
Head Referee
RI Rampage
http://rirampage.com
inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
successes of the big 4 established major sports. Measured
against that yardstick, there's no way that the AUDL could
hope to be viewed favorably. What would be more
appropriate, and fair, is to compare the early days of these
sports and the growing pains and path to success that they
took.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Football_League
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nba#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nhl#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mlb#History
Lots of similarities here to what has taken place in the
AUDL's first season.
None of the AUDL owners I've spoken with had delusions of
the first season being profitable and that it would take
several seasons to grow the brand.
--
Mark
Head Referee
RI Rampage
http://rirampage.com
mgd.mitch
Aug 20, 2012, 9:50:04 AM8/20/12
to
CanisMajor wrote on Mon, 20 August 2012 00:46
care about making money and that the major sports teams
weren't profitable either.
> I'm not sure why everyone keeps trying to compare the
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports.
Possibly because a player suggested that sports owners don't
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports.
care about making money and that the major sports teams
weren't profitable either.
thefan
Aug 20, 2012, 3:00:04 PM8/20/12
to
Mitch, you're selectively choosing part of someones post
again.
Quote:
statement.
again.
Quote:
> What would be more appropriate, and fair, is to compare
> the early days of these sports and the growing pains and
> path to success that they took.
there's the rest of the paragraph. and a very sensible
> the early days of these sports and the growing pains and
> path to success that they took.
statement.
mgd.mitch
Aug 20, 2012, 3:55:04 PM8/20/12
to
thefan wrote on Mon, 20 August 2012 14:59
"most sports franchises lose money." That isn't selective
quoting, its what he said. No reference to saying when they
started, but incorrectly saying they lost money now.
> Mitch, you're selectively choosing part of someones post
> again.
>
> Quote:
> > What would be more appropriate, and fair, is to
> > compare the early days of these sports and the growing
> > pains and path to success that they took.
>
>
> there's the rest of the paragraph. and a very sensible
> statement.
That is not the post i an referring to. Robs post starts off
> again.
>
> Quote:
> > What would be more appropriate, and fair, is to
> > compare the early days of these sports and the growing
> > pains and path to success that they took.
>
>
> there's the rest of the paragraph. and a very sensible
> statement.
"most sports franchises lose money." That isn't selective
quoting, its what he said. No reference to saying when they
started, but incorrectly saying they lost money now.
thefan
Aug 20, 2012, 5:05:03 PM8/20/12
to
then you should pull quotes from the posts you are referring
to. it will be less confusing for the rest of us and make
you a more successful communicator.
to. it will be less confusing for the rest of us and make
you a more successful communicator.
mgd.mitch
Aug 20, 2012, 6:00:04 PM8/20/12
to
thefan wrote on Mon, 20 August 2012 17:03
response to Canis quoted Canis and referenced "a player"
(rob). Each time I responded to something someone said, i
quoted them directly.
> then you should pull quotes from the posts you are
> referring to. it will be less confusing for the rest of
> us and make you a more successful communicator.
???? I did. My response to Rob quoted him directly. My
> referring to. it will be less confusing for the rest of
> us and make you a more successful communicator.
response to Canis quoted Canis and referenced "a player"
(rob). Each time I responded to something someone said, i
quoted them directly.
ryan3thompson
Aug 20, 2012, 5:53:57 PM8/20/12
to
I couldn't help but be struck by the parallels between the Spinners
(owner, GM, AND coach! Ice girls! Lessons from players!) and these
minor-league hockey teams:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/35099/minor-league-hockey-idols-the-san-francisco-bulls-get-ready-for-life-in-the-echl
(owner, GM, AND coach! Ice girls! Lessons from players!) and these
minor-league hockey teams:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/35099/minor-league-hockey-idols-the-san-francisco-bulls-get-ready-for-life-in-the-echl
Bulb
Aug 20, 2012, 9:05:04 PM8/20/12
to
mgd.mitch wrote on Mon, 20 August 2012 17:59
Don't worry Mitch, what you meant was pretty clear to anyone
who's been following this thread closely. He doesn't speak
for "the rest of us."
who's been following this thread closely. He doesn't speak
for "the rest of us."
thefan
Aug 21, 2012, 9:45:05 AM8/21/12
to
Bulb, you're a twit. i have it on good authority that you
are that way in person and not only on rsd.
i was going to just let it go because it's really not a big
deal but it's a slow morning. and you're a twit.
Mitch's reply from 9:47 8/20/12:
Quote:
and then there's the thing canismajor wrote, "I'm not sure
why . . . ". then there's Mitch's reply to what he wrote,
"because a player suggested . . . major sports teams weren't
profitable either."
then there's the post directly above Mitch's. it's from
CanisMajor. it was posted at 00:46 Monday, August 20. it
has this sentence in it:
Quote:
and responded to, followed in the same paragraph by these
two sentences:
Quote:
was responding to the post he quoted. now, it may have been
obvious to a twit like you that even though Mitch's post
referenced a post by canismajor and quoted a post by
canismajor that he was somehow not responding to a post by
canismajor but that's because you're a twit. me, i'm just a
normal, simple guy who sees a post that references another
and quotes that same post and figures the response there in
is to that post.
seems sensible that we wouldn't compare the first season of
the AUDL to the however many'th season of one of the major 4
sports. what with all the years under their belt. and i
figure that Mitch knows that because he's usually a near
about sensible guy. he probably just got a little twisted
up because his coffee hadn't kicked in or something.
but you. you're a twit so who knows.
are that way in person and not only on rsd.
i was going to just let it go because it's really not a big
deal but it's a slow morning. and you're a twit.
Mitch's reply from 9:47 8/20/12:
Quote:
> CanisMajor wrote on Mon, 20 August 2012 00:46
>
> I'm not sure why everyone keeps trying to compare the
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports.
> Possibly because a player suggested that sports owners
> don't care about making money and that the major sports
> teams weren't profitable either.
see the part there where it says "CanisMajor wrote . . ."
>
> I'm not sure why everyone keeps trying to compare the
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports.
> Possibly because a player suggested that sports owners
> don't care about making money and that the major sports
> teams weren't profitable either.
and then there's the thing canismajor wrote, "I'm not sure
why . . . ". then there's Mitch's reply to what he wrote,
"because a player suggested . . . major sports teams weren't
profitable either."
then there's the post directly above Mitch's. it's from
CanisMajor. it was posted at 00:46 Monday, August 20. it
has this sentence in it:
Quote:
> I'm not sure why everyone keeps trying to compare the
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports.
which is suspiciously similar to the one that Mitch quoted
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports.
and responded to, followed in the same paragraph by these
two sentences:
Quote:
> Measured against that yardstick, there's no way that the
> AUDL could hope to be viewed favorably. What would be more
> appropriate, and fair, is to compare the early days of
> these sports and the growing pains and path to success
> that they took.
I have been reading this thread and it seemed to me that he
> these sports and the growing pains and path to success
> that they took.
was responding to the post he quoted. now, it may have been
obvious to a twit like you that even though Mitch's post
referenced a post by canismajor and quoted a post by
canismajor that he was somehow not responding to a post by
canismajor but that's because you're a twit. me, i'm just a
normal, simple guy who sees a post that references another
and quotes that same post and figures the response there in
is to that post.
seems sensible that we wouldn't compare the first season of
the AUDL to the however many'th season of one of the major 4
sports. what with all the years under their belt. and i
figure that Mitch knows that because he's usually a near
about sensible guy. he probably just got a little twisted
up because his coffee hadn't kicked in or something.
but you. you're a twit so who knows.
mgd.mitch
Aug 21, 2012, 1:20:16 PM8/21/12
to
jimmy, I think it's you that has missed your morning coffee.
and for the record, i don't drink coffee.
Here is the play-by-play:
Rob: Most established franchise owners lose money in the
big 4 sports.
Mitch: No, they don't, most actually make money.
Dave: Here's the data showing most make money.
Canis: Why are people comparing the AUDL to established
sports teams?
Mitch: We aren't. We are posting data to show Rob's
statement was incorrect.
hope that helps.
and for the record, i don't drink coffee.
Here is the play-by-play:
Rob: Most established franchise owners lose money in the
big 4 sports.
Mitch: No, they don't, most actually make money.
Dave: Here's the data showing most make money.
Canis: Why are people comparing the AUDL to established
sports teams?
Mitch: We aren't. We are posting data to show Rob's
statement was incorrect.
hope that helps.
Bulb
Aug 21, 2012, 1:46:46 PM8/21/12
to
thefan wrote on Tue, 21 August 2012 09:42
authority" is.
thefan wrote on Tue, 21 August 2012 09:42
person (a player) and not the second person (you) in his
response, because the person who made the suggestion was
different from the person he was responding to. He didn't
say "Probably because YOU suggested..." did he?
Sounds like you just have reading comprehension issues,
which might explain why you tend to side with Toad and Mike
G most of the time...
> Bulb, you're a twit. i have it on good authority that
> you are that way in person and not only on rsd.
Too cool to name drop? Would love to know who this "good
> you are that way in person and not only on rsd.
authority" is.
thefan wrote on Tue, 21 August 2012 09:42
> I have been reading this thread and it seemed to me that
> he was responding to the post he quoted. now, it may have
> been obvious to a twit like you that even though Mitch's
> post referenced a post by canismajor and quoted a post by
> canismajor that he was somehow not responding to a post by
> canismajor but that's because you're a twit. me, i'm just
> a normal, simple guy who sees a post that references
> another and quotes that same post and figures the response
> there in is to that post.
He was responding to the post he quoted. He used the third
> he was responding to the post he quoted. now, it may have
> been obvious to a twit like you that even though Mitch's
> post referenced a post by canismajor and quoted a post by
> canismajor that he was somehow not responding to a post by
> canismajor but that's because you're a twit. me, i'm just
> a normal, simple guy who sees a post that references
> another and quotes that same post and figures the response
> there in is to that post.
person (a player) and not the second person (you) in his
response, because the person who made the suggestion was
different from the person he was responding to. He didn't
say "Probably because YOU suggested..." did he?
Sounds like you just have reading comprehension issues,
which might explain why you tend to side with Toad and Mike
G most of the time...
thefan
Aug 21, 2012, 2:10:04 PM8/21/12
to
Quote:
which is kind of . . . not the norm.
Quote:
Quote:
and then responds to a different post, that ain't on me. i
side with Mike and Toad because i read what they write, i
comprehend what they mean and I agree with what they say.
it's a pretty simple concept.
and Mitch, I NEVER go without my coffee. if I'm up, i've
got it.
> because the person who made the suggestion was different
> from the person he was responding to. He didn't say
> "Probably because YOU suggested..." did he?
no. but he did quote the post he wasn't responding to.
> from the person he was responding to. He didn't say
> "Probably because YOU suggested..." did he?
which is kind of . . . not the norm.
Quote:
> Too cool to name drop? Would love to know who this "good
> authority" is.
i bet you would. i'm siding with them though.
> authority" is.
Quote:
> Sounds like you just have reading comprehension issues,
> which might explain why you tend to side with Toad and
> Mike G most of the time...
i comprehended exactly what i read. if a guy quotes a post
> which might explain why you tend to side with Toad and
> Mike G most of the time...
and then responds to a different post, that ain't on me. i
side with Mike and Toad because i read what they write, i
comprehend what they mean and I agree with what they say.
it's a pretty simple concept.
and Mitch, I NEVER go without my coffee. if I'm up, i've
got it.
Dan Naylor
Aug 21, 2012, 4:05:04 PM8/21/12
to
and if you really beleive NBA teams lose as much as they
say, read this:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics
The reality is, with the TV contracts and radio rights often
owned by affiliated subsidies, going through a balance sheet
is near impossible.
In the same vein, the dodgers a couple years ago were losing
money, mostly to finance the ridiculous lifestyle of the
mccourts.
say, read this:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7021031/the-nets-nba-economics
The reality is, with the TV contracts and radio rights often
owned by affiliated subsidies, going through a balance sheet
is near impossible.
In the same vein, the dodgers a couple years ago were losing
money, mostly to finance the ridiculous lifestyle of the
mccourts.
Bulb
Aug 21, 2012, 4:05:07 PM8/21/12
to
thefan wrote on Tue, 21 August 2012 14:05
(not responded to) a different post. You got a problem with
people REFERRING to posts they don't quote? Because you
(and I) have been REFERRING to all of these posts without
quoting each and every one of them, and you seem to be
following the conversation pretty well.
thefan wrote on Tue, 21 August 2012 14:05
their holy name on this plebeian forum? I didn't realize
there was anything to side with them on...
> Quote:
> > because the person who made the suggestion was
> > different from the person he was responding to. He
> > didn't say "Probably because YOU suggested..." did he?
>
>
> no. but he did quote the post he wasn't responding to.
> which is kind of . . . not the norm.
>
> > because the person who made the suggestion was
> > different from the person he was responding to. He
> > didn't say "Probably because YOU suggested..." did he?
>
>
> no. but he did quote the post he wasn't responding to.
> which is kind of . . . not the norm.
>
> i comprehended exactly what i read. if a guy quotes a
> post and then responds to a different post, that ain't on
> me.
He DID quote the post he was RESPONDING to. He REFERRED
> post and then responds to a different post, that ain't on
> me.
(not responded to) a different post. You got a problem with
people REFERRING to posts they don't quote? Because you
(and I) have been REFERRING to all of these posts without
quoting each and every one of them, and you seem to be
following the conversation pretty well.
thefan wrote on Tue, 21 August 2012 14:05
> Quote:
> > Too cool to name drop? Would love to know who this
> > "good authority" is.
>
>
> i bet you would. i'm siding with them though.
Siding with them? In that they would not want you to use
> > Too cool to name drop? Would love to know who this
> > "good authority" is.
>
>
> i bet you would. i'm siding with them though.
their holy name on this plebeian forum? I didn't realize
there was anything to side with them on...
thefan
Aug 21, 2012, 11:05:04 PM8/21/12
to
Quote:
from another post and 2) his answer to that question. you
can refer to whatever you want, but if you quote a question,
and then answer that question as the only piece of your
post, you're leaving yourself pretty unclear as to what
other post you might be referring to. example
Quote:
> what color is a rainbow?
blue.
sorry, i was "referring" to another post, a couple above the
one i quoted about the sky.
Quote:
> Siding with them?
yeah. he was cool. i like him.
you? you seem like a twit.
> He DID quote the post he was RESPONDING to. He REFERRED
> (not responded to) a different post.
the post had two parts. 1) a question, which was a quote
> (not responded to) a different post.
from another post and 2) his answer to that question. you
can refer to whatever you want, but if you quote a question,
and then answer that question as the only piece of your
post, you're leaving yourself pretty unclear as to what
other post you might be referring to. example
Quote:
> what color is a rainbow?
blue.
sorry, i was "referring" to another post, a couple above the
one i quoted about the sky.
Quote:
> Siding with them?
yeah. he was cool. i like him.
you? you seem like a twit.
mgd.mitch
Aug 21, 2012, 11:30:04 PM8/21/12
to
jimmy, you are seriously misreading what was written. bulb
is correct. You are incorrect. Canis asked why people are
talking about established teams, and I answered canis's
question. that answer being "because a player made an
incorrect statement about established teams." i can't
believe this is still being discussed.
is correct. You are incorrect. Canis asked why people are
talking about established teams, and I answered canis's
question. that answer being "because a player made an
incorrect statement about established teams." i can't
believe this is still being discussed.
thefan
Aug 22, 2012, 12:05:04 PM8/22/12
to
neither can I. post from CanisMajor at 00:46 Aug 20
Quote:
> NBA
> NHL
> MLB
Quote:
> CanisMajor wrote on Mon, 20 August 2012 00:46
>
> I'm not sure why everyone keeps trying to compare the
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports.
> Possibly because a player suggested that sports owners
> don't care about making money and that the major sports
> teams weren't profitable either.
late on, you said this:
Quote:
says you quoted CanisMajor and the quote you pulled looks a
lot (exactly) like a line from CanisMajor.
i would have let it go a while back but Bulb jumped in.
That guy makes my skin crawl. to be such a dork and have no
idea . . . fascinating.
Quote:
> davidvatz wrote on Fri, 17 August 2012 15:04
> Forbes does an annual review of US sports franchises,
> here are some results from the 2012 roundup:
> NBA - 15/30 (50%) of teams showed an operating profit,
> 22/30 (73%) showed an increase in franchise value
> NHL - 12/30 (40%) of teams showed an operating profit,
> 23/30 (77%) showed an increase in franchise value
> MLB - 27/30 (90%) of teams showed an operating profit,
> 28/30 (93%) showed an increase in franchise value
> NFL - 30/32 (94%) of teams showed an operating profit,
> 23/32 (72%) showed an increase in franchise value
>
> Not really sure if this says anything for the AUDL, just
> putting some info out there.
>
> I'm personally somewhat skeptical that the values of
> AUDL franchises will continue to rise if operating profits
> remain negative, and I'm not sure that operating profits
> will be positive with the current model. Something like a
> major TV deal could easily cause the value of a franchise
> to skyrocket, so it's really a risk that the owners are
> deciding to take - accept negative operating profit in the
> near term for future potential growth, either by organic
> market growth or some sort of "game-changer" like a media
> contract.
>
>
>
> Forbes does an annual review of US sports franchises,
> here are some results from the 2012 roundup:
> NBA - 15/30 (50%) of teams showed an operating profit,
> 22/30 (73%) showed an increase in franchise value
> NHL - 12/30 (40%) of teams showed an operating profit,
> 23/30 (77%) showed an increase in franchise value
> MLB - 27/30 (90%) of teams showed an operating profit,
> 28/30 (93%) showed an increase in franchise value
> NFL - 30/32 (94%) of teams showed an operating profit,
> 23/32 (72%) showed an increase in franchise value
>
> Not really sure if this says anything for the AUDL, just
> putting some info out there.
>
> I'm personally somewhat skeptical that the values of
> AUDL franchises will continue to rise if operating profits
> remain negative, and I'm not sure that operating profits
> will be positive with the current model. Something like a
> major TV deal could easily cause the value of a franchise
> to skyrocket, so it's really a risk that the owners are
> deciding to take - accept negative operating profit in the
> near term for future potential growth, either by organic
> market growth or some sort of "game-changer" like a media
> contract.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why everyone keeps trying to compare the
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports. Measured
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> against that yardstick, there's no way that the AUDL could
> hope to be viewed favorably. What would be more
> appropriate, and fair, is to compare the early days of
> these sports and the growing pains and path to success
> that they took.
>
> NFL
> hope to be viewed favorably. What would be more
> appropriate, and fair, is to compare the early days of
> these sports and the growing pains and path to success
> that they took.
>
> NBA
> NHL
> MLB
>
> Lots of similarities here to what has taken place in the
> AUDL's first season.
>
> None of the AUDL owners I've spoken with had delusions
> of the first season being profitable and that it would
> take several seasons to grow the brand.
very next post in line, from you at 9:47 Aug 20
> Lots of similarities here to what has taken place in the
> AUDL's first season.
>
> None of the AUDL owners I've spoken with had delusions
> of the first season being profitable and that it would
> take several seasons to grow the brand.
Quote:
> CanisMajor wrote on Mon, 20 August 2012 00:46
>
> I'm not sure why everyone keeps trying to compare the
> inaugural season of the AUDL against the most recent
> successes of the big 4 established major sports.
> Possibly because a player suggested that sports owners
> don't care about making money and that the major sports
> teams weren't profitable either.
Quote:
> That is not the post i an referring to. Robs post starts
> off "most sports franchises lose money." That isn't
> selective quoting, its what he said. No reference to
> saying when they started, but incorrectly saying they lost
> money now.
now, maybe you were referring to Rob's post. but your post
> off "most sports franchises lose money." That isn't
> selective quoting, its what he said. No reference to
> saying when they started, but incorrectly saying they lost
> money now.
says you quoted CanisMajor and the quote you pulled looks a
lot (exactly) like a line from CanisMajor.
i would have let it go a while back but Bulb jumped in.
That guy makes my skin crawl. to be such a dork and have no
idea . . . fascinating.
Bulb
Aug 22, 2012, 1:45:05 PM8/22/12
to
thefan wrote on Tue, 21 August 2012 23:03
(implied) question that he quoted by referencing what
someone else said earlier. Are you not capable of
comprehending that one person can respond to a second person
and simultaneously reference what a third person said?
Your analogy fails on so many levels. An analogous response
to your hypothetical question would be something like
"someone told me rainbows are blue." Aside from being
incorrect, would that be that really so confusing?
Here, maybe this will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
The surest sign that you are wrong is that CanisMajor (or
anyone) has not responded to agree with you, that Mitch's
post was unclear. You are literally the only person to have
found it confusing.
thefan wrote on Wed, 22 August 2012 12:03
that told you I'm a twit in real life?
> Quote:
> > He DID quote the post he was RESPONDING to. He
> > REFERRED (not responded to) a different post.
>
> the post had two parts. 1) a question, which was a
> quote from another post and 2) his answer to that
> question. you can refer to whatever you want, but if you
> quote a question, and then answer that question as the
> only piece of your post, you're leaving yourself pretty
> unclear as to what other post you might be referring to.
> example
>
> Quote:
> > what color is a rainbow?
>
> blue.
>
> sorry, i was "referring" to another post, a couple above
> the one i quoted about the sky.
Mitch didn't just say "sports owners don't care about making
> > He DID quote the post he was RESPONDING to. He
> > REFERRED (not responded to) a different post.
>
> the post had two parts. 1) a question, which was a
> quote from another post and 2) his answer to that
> question. you can refer to whatever you want, but if you
> quote a question, and then answer that question as the
> only piece of your post, you're leaving yourself pretty
> unclear as to what other post you might be referring to.
> example
>
> Quote:
> > what color is a rainbow?
>
> blue.
>
> sorry, i was "referring" to another post, a couple above
> the one i quoted about the sky.
money and that the major sports teams weren't profitable
either." He said "a player suggested that sports owners
don't care about making money and that the major sports
teams weren't profitable either." His response answered the
(implied) question that he quoted by referencing what
someone else said earlier. Are you not capable of
comprehending that one person can respond to a second person
and simultaneously reference what a third person said?
Your analogy fails on so many levels. An analogous response
to your hypothetical question would be something like
"someone told me rainbows are blue." Aside from being
incorrect, would that be that really so confusing?
Here, maybe this will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
The surest sign that you are wrong is that CanisMajor (or
anyone) has not responded to agree with you, that Mitch's
post was unclear. You are literally the only person to have
found it confusing.
thefan wrote on Wed, 22 August 2012 12:03
> i would have let it go a while back but Bulb jumped in.
> That guy makes my skin crawl. to be such a dork and have
> no idea . . . fascinating.
Who said I have no idea? Was it your same "good authority"
> That guy makes my skin crawl. to be such a dork and have
> no idea . . . fascinating.
that told you I'm a twit in real life?
keg
Aug 22, 2012, 2:28:04 PM8/22/12
to
I love how on topic this thread is.
Related to minor leagues losing money and actually relevant to the discussion of whether small sports leagues should expect to make money: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8274742/after-another-olympic-gold-medal-never-ending-battle-us-women-professional-soccer-rages-on
- Keg
Related to minor leagues losing money and actually relevant to the discussion of whether small sports leagues should expect to make money: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8274742/after-another-olympic-gold-medal-never-ending-battle-us-women-professional-soccer-rages-on
- Keg
mgd.mitch
Aug 22, 2012, 2:47:09 PM8/22/12
to
thefan wrote on Wed, 22 August 2012 12:03
> now, maybe you were referring to Rob's post. but your
> post says you quoted CanisMajor and the quote you pulled
> looks a lot (exactly) like a line from CanisMajor.
and magically, both of those statements are, in fact, true.
> post says you quoted CanisMajor and the quote you pulled
> looks a lot (exactly) like a line from CanisMajor.
I referenced a statement made by Rob in order to respond to
a statement by CanisMajor.
Pretty straight forward stuff.
thefan
Aug 23, 2012, 9:15:04 AM8/23/12
to
Quote:
you get points for that.
> Who said I have no idea?
so you are aware of what a dork you are? cool. at least
you get points for that.
Aguilar
Aug 23, 2012, 9:50:04 AM8/23/12
to
Bulb
Aug 23, 2012, 10:20:04 AM8/23/12
to
thefan wrote on Thu, 23 August 2012 09:10
Guess I'll take your lack of response to the argument at
hand as you admitting you were wrong.
> Quote:
> > Who said I have no idea?
>
> so you are aware of what a dork you are? cool. at
> least you get points for that.
..that's the part that you felt the need to respond to?
> > Who said I have no idea?
>
> so you are aware of what a dork you are? cool. at
> least you get points for that.
Guess I'll take your lack of response to the argument at
hand as you admitting you were wrong.
thefan
Aug 24, 2012, 8:30:04 AM8/24/12
to
Quote:
> ...that's the part that you felt the need to respond to?
no. i wanted to respond to some other parts but i just
couldn't control myself. it was like an out of body
experience. crazy.
wait. what happened? i blacked out.
> ...that's the part that you felt the need to respond to?
no. i wanted to respond to some other parts but i just
couldn't control myself. it was like an out of body
experience. crazy.
wait. what happened? i blacked out.
0 new messages