Challenge to all ASU supporters

[JasonKGME]

Challange to all ASU supporters

I have asked this question several times and still have gotten no answer so will try it on a thread of it's own:


Can any of you give me any good reason other then "moral" for the Cardinals to not attempt to collect money owed to them in a legally binding contract entered willingly between ASU and the Cardinals?

Anyone?

 

[Dback Jon]

Re: Challange to all ASU supporters

Originally posted by JasonKGME
I have asked this question several times and still have gotten no answer so will try it on a thread of it's own:


Can any of you give me any good reason other then "moral" for the Cardinals to not attempt to collect money owed to them in a legally binding contract entered willingly between ASU and the Cardinals?

Anyone?

Or is it moral for ASU to try to stiff the Cardinals out of money they legally and MORALLY owe them?

 

[Card Trader]

Re: Re: Challange to all ASU supporters

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Or is it moral for ASU to try to stiff the Cardinals out of money they legally and MORALLY owe them?

Wait.....you mean to tell me that being moral isn't a one way street? get outta here!!!

 

[sundevilfan99]

Yes

1 - ASU did not enter the contract willingly. ASU was forced into the contract by the legislature/ABOR.

2 - the Cardinals are obstructionist and do not bargain in good faith. The Cardinals are exploiting an ambiguity in the language of the contract.

3 - Whether or not the Cardinals are owed money is still in dispute. The original arbitration sided with ASU. The Cardinals appealed and the new arbitrator sided with the Cards. A low damage result would probably mean that ASU would pay it. A high damage result would send it to court.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[Stronso]

Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
1 - ASU did not enter the contract willingly. ASU was forced into the contract by the legislature/ABOR.

2 - the Cardinals are obstructionist and do not bargain in good faith. The Cardinals are exploiting an ambiguity in the language of the contract.

3 - Whether or not the Cardinals are owed money is still in dispute. The original arbitration sided with ASU. The Cardinals appealed and the new arbitrator sided with the Cards. A low damage result would probably mean that ASU would pay it. A high damage result would send it to court.

SDF99 (aka NED)

Please provide proof or link (independent, please) to support your above claims.

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by Stronso
Please provide proof or link (independent, please) to support your above claims.

I agree. It's getting tiring hearing this again and again without any support behind it.

 

[kerouac9]

Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
1 - ASU did not enter the contract willingly. ASU was forced into the contract by the legislature/ABOR.

SDF99 (aka NED)

Doesn't ASU serve at the pleasure of the state legistlature and Board of Regents? I hate it when my boss "forces" me to do my job in return for my wage.

If ASU doesn't want to listen to the ABOR and legistlature, they can go independant any time they want to.

 

[az240zz]

I guess I just don't care. I think the whole argument is silly and stupid. Especially stupid are the arguments that the ASU supports have used.
This is just so typical of Arizona!!! From the jerks in the legislature to AD at ASU just keeps me laughing.

As to the money ASU got too bad they didn't atleast spend it on the stadium. It really sucks!!!!!

Az240z

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by Stronso
Please provide proof or link (independent, please) to support your above claims.

Yeah, whatever. You guys never provide support to your claims.

The Cardinals' many problems are self evident. Does anyone deny that they are the only organization to have this kind of problem ad infinitum, year after year?

If you want to continue to believe the Bidwills, that is certainly your right.

Good luck with **YOUR** team.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[sundevilfan99]

you don't get it, do you

Originally posted by az240zz
I guess I just don't care. I think the whole argument is silly and stupid. Especially stupid are the arguments that the ASU supports have used.
This is just so typical of Arizona!!! From the jerks in the legislature to AD at ASU just keeps me laughing.

As to the money ASU got too bad they didn't atleast spend it on the stadium. It really sucks!!!!!

Az240z

That's the whole point, bonehead. They were spending the money on upgrades to the stadium. Pull your head out.

NED

 

[Dback Jon]

Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
1 - ASU did not enter the contract willingly. ASU was forced into the contract by the legislature/ABOR.

2 - the Cardinals are obstructionist and do not bargain in good faith. The Cardinals are exploiting an ambiguity in the language of the contract.

3 - Whether or not the Cardinals are owed money is still in dispute. The original arbitration sided with ASU. The Cardinals appealed and the new arbitrator sided with the Cards. A low damage result would probably mean that ASU would pay it. A high damage result would send it to court.

SDF99 (aka NED)

Where is your proof on #2?

Number three is a non-issue - the first arbitrator was AN ASU EMPLOYEE!! -- NO credibility there.
The only independent arbitrator sided with the Cardinals, not ASU

 

[Card Trader]

Re: you don't get it, do you

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
That's the whole point, bonehead. They were spending the money on upgrades to the stadium. Pull your head out.

NED

Insults.....the best way to win an argument!!!!

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Yeah, whatever. You guys never provide support to your claims.

The Cardinals' many problems are self evident. Does anyone deny that they are the only organization to have this kind of problem ad infinitum, year after year?

That's not really the support I was expecting...

That's more of a cop-out, but I'll oblige you since it seems like you enjoy arguing.


It's funny that ASU's lack of success is never a point of contention. Only the Cardinals'. It's what the ASU side always comes back to when they're put on the spot.

Maybe ASU's football team should accomplish SOMETHING before you stand behind on-field performance as your Ace in the Hole when dealing with the Cards.

But, if that's your angle, so be it.

ASU has never won jack. Losing the Rose Bowl every ten years is nothing to be proud of. Don't you ever wonder why 45K students (and aaalllll that tuition money, much of it out of state) can't put together a quality team?

Does anyone deny that they are the only organization to have this kind of problem ad infinitum, year after year?
I deny it. ASU's right below them on the totem pole. The most passionless, least successful (given all that they have to work with) football program in the country.

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

At least try to get your facts straight. It only makes you look more stupid when you don't.

ASU is 1-1 in Rose Bowls. ASU played for the National Championship in 1996 (loss to OSU in RB).

ASU finished #2 in the nation in 1975, undefeated 12-0.

ASU has numerous conference championships - the Cardinals do not.

NED

 

[Card Trader]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99


ASU has numerous conference championships - the Cardinals do not.

NED

I'm sorry....are you honestly and with a striaght face trying to compare college athletics with professional athletics?????

Wow.

 

[conraddobler]

I don't live in Arizona so I don't care about ASU any more than any other university I have never rooted for or cared about.

Had the Cardinals sued say my Tigers then I wouldn't like it but I would have to say let the courts decide the issue.

Whatever the contract says is what everyone should be held to I don't see any point in getting emotional about it. Grown people sat around and drew it up and if ASU has no one capable of either reading or editing a legal document prior to signing it and subsequently sticking to it after it is completed then they have bigger problems than lawsuits.

The Cardinals could be legally wrong here and in that case it will take care of itself.

Should ASU ultimately lose out then whoever was in charge of interpreting the contract and determining that they were ok with doing business as they did is the guilty party.

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
At least try to get your facts straight. It only makes you look more stupid when you don't.

ASU is 1-1 in Rose Bowls. ASU played for the National Championship in 1996 (loss to OSU in RB).

ASU finished #2 in the nation in 1975, undefeated 12-0.

ASU has numerous conference championships - the Cardinals do not.

NED

It makes you wonder why, then, with the season ASU had last year (outstanding by most any measure) why the overall attendance for their home games was up just 1% from 2001 and down, severley from the "Glory Days".

Contrast that with the Cardinals who had an awful year yet were able to increase fans at home games by nearly 7%.

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by Card Trader
I'm sorry....are you honestly and with a striaght face trying to compare college athletics with professional athletics?????

Wow.

I know, you don't like to read the posts that I respond to - I simply was correcting the poster prior to me.

Are you trying to tell me that the Cardinals are a winning organization?

NED

 

[JasonKGME]

Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
1 - ASU did not enter the contract willingly. ASU was forced into the contract by the legislature/ABOR.

2 - the Cardinals are obstructionist and do not bargain in good faith. The Cardinals are exploiting an ambiguity in the language of the contract.

3 - Whether or not the Cardinals are owed money is still in dispute. The original arbitration sided with ASU. The Cardinals appealed and the new arbitrator sided with the Cards. A low damage result would probably mean that ASU would pay it. A high damage result would send it to court.

SDF99 (aka NED)

1- Please provide some factual proof that ASU was "forced" into this contract, if I remember correctly ASU brought this contract idea up to the Cardinals.

2- Once again will ask to provide some factual proof because I still haven't seen any

3- No, only one arbitrator has been on this case and he ruled for the Cards, the other person who originally sided with ASU worker for ASU. By definition an Arbitrator is a nuetral third party, not an employee of one of the two parties.

So once again I am provided with nothing from you. thanks!

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by WizardOfAz
It makes you wonder why, then, with the season ASU had last year (outstanding by most any measure) why the overall attendance for their home games was up just 1% from 2001 and down, severley from the "Glory Days".

Contrast that with the Cardinals who had an awful year yet were able to increase fans at home games by nearly 7%.

There are a multitude of reasons why ASU's fan base has declined since the glory days, and they aren't really germaine to the argument.

FWIW though, the big test will be this year. ASU lowered season ticket prices (opposite of the Cards) and are trying to build on a winning record and post-season appearance (opposite of the Cards).

Not bagging on the Cards, just want to include them in the discussion as this is a Cards board.

NED

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
At least try to get your facts straight. It only makes you look more stupid when you don't.

ASU is 1-1 in Rose Bowls. ASU played for the National Championship in 1996 (loss to OSU in RB).

ASU finished #2 in the nation in 1975, undefeated 12-0.

ASU has numerous conference championships - the Cardinals do not.

NED

Florida was clearly the best team in the country by the end of the season in '96. ASU choked on defense and couldn't get it done.
BTW, playing for the NC does not mean playing in the Rose Bowl when the Title game is happening in New Orleans.

1975, that was the last year the Cardinals won their division. Back to back I believe.

 

[Card Trader]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99


FWIW though, the big test will be this year. ASU lowered season ticket prices (opposite of the Cards) and are trying to build on a winning record and post-season appearance (opposite of the Cards).

HAHA, too funny, the Cardinals don't want to win!?!?! Thanks for the enlightenment.


You could have just said, with your first post on this board, that you had no clue about the Cardinals, the organization, the personel, the management and the fans....that way we could have just ignored you from the get go instead of giving you the benefit of the doubt as an objective person.

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by JasonKGME
1- Please provide some factual proof that ASU was "forced" into this contract, if I remember correctly ASU brought this contract idea up to the Cardinals.

2- Once again will ask to provide some factual proof because I still haven't seen any

3- No, only one arbitrator has been on this case and he ruled for the Cards, the other person who originally sided with ASU worker for ASU. By definition an Arbitrator is a nuetral third party, not an employee of one of the two parties.

So once again I am provided with nothing from you. thanks!

1 - ASU was forced by the legislature/ABOR. Go read some of the articles on the subject.

2 - I have provided plenty of examples - you refuse (or are unable) to read them. The Cardinals do not bargain well with their first round picks. They back-door their stadium proposals, etc. ad nauseum

3 - The first arbiter was an employee of ABOR, not ASU. That is part of the state arbitration process which the Cardinals had to agree to in order to enter into the contract with ASU.

I've provided plenty of starting points for topics, but you simply ignore them and say - that's no proof.

Why don't you tell me another organization that consistently fails to sign first rounders on time. Or get them into camps (this year being the lone exception). Why were they run out of St. Louis? Or Chicago? Why were they run out of Tempe? Why did they try and force ASU to close down SDS and Karsten Golf Course? Don't you see the pattern?

NED

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
There are a multitude of reasons why ASU's fan base has declined since the glory days

NED

Mandatory donations to the Sun Angels?

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by Card Trader
HAHA, too funny, the Cardinals don't want to win!?!?! Thanks for the enlightenment.


You could have just said, with your first post on this board, that you had no clue about the Cardinals, the organization, the personel, the management and the fans....that way we could have just ignored you from the get go instead of giving you the benefit of the doubt as an objective person.

Time to go to school and take some reading comprehension my friend... I said...

"ASU lowered season ticket prices (opposite of the Cards) and are trying to build on a winning record and post-season appearance (opposite of the Cards)."

After you take the class, you might recognize the difference between what I typed, and what you construed that to mean.

NED