Challenge to all ASU supporters

[sundevilfan99]

Meanwhile, I continue to offer information including links, but I don't see any forthcoming from any of you.

Further, what is your interpretation of the inability of the Cardinals to sign FA, to sign 1st Rounders on time, to pay for insurance policies, to get a stadium deal, etc.?

That is the basis of my contention that the Cardinals are bad-faith bargainers.

I suppose it's all a vast conspiracy. Everyone is out to get the Bidwills. Right.

NED

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
the Cardinals are obstructionist and do not bargain in good faith.

Funny how the rest of the NFL owners disagree with your assessment. You'd figure they'd know...

Speaking of bargaining in good faith, has ASU ever been on probation for recruiting violations? So "no." I dare ya.

 

[Dback Jon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Here is the article where the Cards were trying to tear down SDS and rip up Karsten...

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special07/articles/0119stadium19.html

NED

Yo Neddy - it was the state legislature that proposed the Karsten site - not the Cards.

Any SDS should be ripped down - it is a dump.

 

[Dback Jon]

Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Funny how the rest of the NFL owners disagree with your assessment. You'd figure they'd know...

Speaking of bargaining in good faith, has ASU ever been on probation for recruiting violations? So "no." I dare ya.

Shaved Points, lately??

 

[SECTION 11]

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

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Yo Neddy - it was the state legislature that proposed the Karsten site - not the Cards.

Doh!

I was wondering how long that was going to take.


Will Ned admit he was wrong?
$500 says 'no'

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Funny how the rest of the NFL owners disagree with your assessment. You'd figure they'd know...

Speaking of bargaining in good faith, has ASU ever been on probation for recruiting violations? So "no." I dare ya.

Actually, the Cardinals were one of the 'obstructionists' to refuse to vote for instant replay for a long time. They are also obstructionist when it comes to signing their players and not utilizing new contract options.

Your point about ASU is w/o merit. Nothing to do with good faith bargaining.

Another article which mentions the Karsten site...

http://www.wranglernews.com/stadiumproposal.htm

As for the legislature putting that stadium site up, it was actually the Bidwills working through their state representative who pushed that bill. They were trying to save on rental fees for the practice facility.

You can ignore the facts, but it doesn't change them. Just quit trying to spin them.

NED

 

[Dback Jon]

Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Actually, the Cardinals were one of the 'obstructionists' to refuse to vote for instant replay for a long time. They are also obstructionist when it comes to signing their players and not utilizing new contract options.

Your point about ASU is w/o merit. Nothing to do with good faith bargaining.

Another article which mentions the Karsten site...

http://www.wranglernews.com/stadiumproposal.htm

As for the legislature putting that stadium site up, it was actually the Bidwills working through their state representative who pushed that bill. They were trying to save on rental fees for the practice facility.

You can ignore the facts, but it doesn't change them. Just quit trying to spin them.

NED

How do you know it was the Bidwills? The articles mention 6 or 7 sites - each had supporters/detractors.

How do you corrolate voting no on instant replay to being Obstructionist? If someone proposes something, and you oppose it, should you always be labeled obstructionist?

Again, it is ASU and that greedy leech, Gene Smith that is being obstructionist and not dealing in good faith.
You can ignore the facts, but it doesn't change them. Just quit trying to spin them.

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Your point about ASU is w/o merit. Nothing to do with good faith bargaining.

Recruiting violations have nothing to do with good faith bargaining? Are you serious??
Do you think Rick Neuheisel's peers feel the same way?


Please don't make up any more conspiracies.
Surely the State Legislature would side with the "bastion of good faith bargaining" that is ASU over the "evil Bidwill empire."

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by Dback Jon
How do you know it was the Bidwills? The articles mention 6 or 7 sites - each had supporters/detractors.

How do you corrolate voting no on instant replay to being Obstructionist? If someone proposes something, and you oppose it, should you always be labeled obstructionist?

Again, it is ASU and that greedy leech, Gene Smith that is being obstructionist and not dealing in good faith.
You can ignore the facts, but it doesn't change them. Just quit trying to spin them.

You must be used to being wrong.

Section 11 stated that the Cardinals are not viewed as obstructionist by the NFL. I gave him an example of something that the Cards were obstructing against the wishes of other NFL teams. I also included their obstructionist views in negotiating contracts.

ASU entered into an agreement last year with Hohokam park to play baseball there and host a regional. This year they've entered into an agreement with Tempe Diablo Stadium for hosting a regional.

There are plenty of examples where ASU has been shown to bargain in good faith, but I haven't read a single instance of the Cardinals bargaining in good faith from you guys. If the Cardinals bargained in good faith, they would have their own stadium already, they would sign their first round picks on time, and they would pay for insurance for their picks.

NED

 

[Dback Jon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
You must be used to being wrong.


NED

LMAO - coming from someone that has posted 30+ times and hasn't said anything right..........

You confuse your opinions with reality. I refute your delusions, but then you just repost your delusional thinking, proving nothing.

The Cardinals moved to AZ in Good Faith, been screwed by certain parts of AZ ever since. IF the leaders of the state (the non-profit public sector) had been dealing with the Cardinals in Good Faith from Day 1, then this issue would never had come up, because the Cardinals would have been in their new stadium for years.

The NFL awarded Super Bowl XXX(?) to AZ only because of the Bidwills - which pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy.
Ask the hundreds of charities that the Cards support if Bidwill does not act in good Faith.

 

[SECTION 11]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
ASU entered into an agreement last year with Hohokam park to play baseball there and host a regional. This year they've entered into an agreement with Tempe Diablo Stadium for hosting a regional.

...psst...

those are nicer stadiums.


It's the same reason the Fiesta Bowl will have a new home in a couple of years. A better venue.
But I'm sure ASU is thrilled with the prospect of hosting the Insight.com Bowl, if they can pry it away from BOB.
Surely something in their "good faith bargaining" failed, no?

 

[hef]

Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Actually, the Cardinals were one of the 'obstructionists' to refuse to vote for instant replay for a long time. They are also obstructionist when it comes to signing their players and not utilizing new contract options.

Your point about ASU is w/o merit. Nothing to do with good faith bargaining.

Another article which mentions the Karsten site...

http://www.wranglernews.com/stadiumproposal.htm

As for the legislature putting that stadium site up, it was actually the Bidwills working through their state representative who pushed that bill. They were trying to save on rental fees for the practice facility.

You can ignore the facts, but it doesn't change them. Just quit trying to spin them.
NED

where in the f*ck did it mention that the bidwills pushed that bill trough their state rep imo that link did nothing for you except prove that your complaint is only an assumtionand realy holds no water

 

[Krangodnzr]

This guy has shown one thing: The typical ASU supporter in this issue, resort to name calling and other tactics to ignore the issue at hand. He mostly has talked about the onfield product or other unrelated business issues.

Typical ASU = good, Cards = bad argument. I have had enough of this troll. He hasn't brought up one point that has proven anything, or has any relevance in regards to ASU being "right".

 

[Krangodnzr]

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

Originally posted by SECTION 11
...psst...

those are nicer stadiums.


It's the same reason the Fiesta Bowl will have a new home in a couple of years. A better venue.
But I'm sure ASU is thrilled with the prospect of hosting the Insight.com Bowl, if they can pry it away from BOB.
Surely something in their "good faith bargaining" failed, no?

It is embarrassing to see the Valley of the Sun represented by SDS on a National stage. The Insight.com Bowl is more fitting.

 

[Renz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
You must be used to being wrong.

Section 11 stated that the Cardinals are not viewed as obstructionist by the NFL. I gave him an example of something that the Cards were obstructing against the wishes of other NFL teams. I also included their obstructionist views in negotiating contracts.

There are plenty of examples where ASU has been shown to bargain in good faith, but I haven't read a single instance of the Cardinals bargaining in good faith from you guys. If the Cardinals bargained in good faith, they would have their own stadium already, they would sign their first round picks on time, and they would pay for insurance for their picks.

NED

I'm not sure what your definition of "obstructionist" is. Owners voted on instant replay to see if enough members of the league were in favor of it to implement the system. The Cardinals don't want to use instant replay. It is no secret that the Bidwills are much more "old school" in terms of the way they run their business, but so what? If the majority of owners want IR and the Cardinals don't does that mean they are "obstructionist". Is everyone in the minority side of an issue "obstructionist"?

I also can't follow your logic in calling the Cardinals "obstructionist" in their contract negotiations. Again, they are admittedly a bit old fashioned in the way they structure contracts, but I don't think you can allege that they don't bargain in good faith. I think the vast majority of Cardinal employees are fairly compensated for their services.

 

[Renz]

I also wanted to say again what has all ready been said about Gene Smith. I lost any respect I might have had for him when he brought up the Cardinals on-field success publicly when referring to the ASU-AD/Cardinals dispute. It is impossible for those comments to be more irrelevant to the argument over who owes whom. Those comments were meant only to belittle the Cardinals and inflame public opinion to his side. Truly the sign of someone who knows he is in the wrong and is desperately grasping at straws.

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
This year they've entered into an agreement with Tempe Diablo Stadium for hosting a regional.

NED

How much rent are they paying?

 

[Angel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Here is the article where the Cards were trying to tear down SDS and rip up Karsten...

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special07/articles/0119stadium19.html

NED

That article doesn't say the Cardinals wanted ASU's golf course. It says that it was an option to build the stadium on that site. Selecting the site was the TSA's responsibility; this was to be done from various entities that submitted a BID for the project. The Cardinals didn't submit a site for consideration.

If you want to point finger about something that never even happened any way look directly at Tempe, they were the ones so desperate to KEEP the Cards that they were willing to sacrifice the course...

"Giuliano said partnership talks with ASU fell through when the university would not budge on the requirements it had for Tempe to use its land for a stadium, among those that academic and athletic operations not be affected and that it receive replacement land bordering campus. He said ASU wasn't willing to have Karsten Golf Course closed for the time it would take to build a stadium even if the city provided monetary compensation."

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special07/articles/1212stadium12.html

 

[JasonKGME]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Here is the article where the Cards were trying to tear down SDS and rip up Karsten...

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special07/articles/0119stadium19.html

NED

DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOUR LINK:

Meanwhile Friday, Arizona State University officials reiterated their opposition to offering part of the school's Karsten Golf Course for the stadium. Several state lawmakers are working on a bill that they say would force ASU to submit the Karsten site, but a university vice president said such legislation would be a bad idea.

"I believe they have a very unrealistic understanding of what the implications of this would be," said Jack Pfister, ASU's vice president for institutional advancement. "It appears to us it's going to be very difficult to have a stadium on ASU property that would not adversely impact academic and athletic programs."





Can you please tell me where in this article it states that the CARDINALS were trying to tear anything down??? The legistlature were trying and talking about several options, none of which the cards were involved with.

 

[JasonKGME]

Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Actually, the Cardinals were one of the 'obstructionists' to refuse to vote for instant replay for a long time. They are also obstructionist when it comes to signing their players and not utilizing new contract options.

Your point about ASU is w/o merit. Nothing to do with good faith bargaining.

Another article which mentions the Karsten site...

http://www.wranglernews.com/stadiumproposal.htm

As for the legislature putting that stadium site up, it was actually the Bidwills working through their state representative who pushed that bill. They were trying to save on rental fees for the practice facility.

You can ignore the facts, but it doesn't change them. Just quit trying to spin them.

NED

Ance again I see nothing in this article that mentions the cards wanted to tear down karsten or SDS, only that they were willing to pony up an additional $25 million to get a site OTHER THEN ASU!

 

[MadCardDisease]

What are Sun Angels?

 

[WizardOfAz]

Originally posted by MadCardDisease
What are Sun Angels?

Bring your checkbook:

http://thesundevils.ocsn.com/genrel/sun-angel-found-home.html

 

[rtjim]

A quote from your second link

In February, plans were in the works to buy the land when Tempe chose to support a site at Arizona State University’s Karsten Golf Course. The proposal for the Karsten site ultimately failed when ASU officials nixed the plans.

I believe it says that TEMPE not the cards supported the golf coarse site Or maybe I cant read either?

 

[40yearfan]

Originally posted by sundevilfan99

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?

Are you kidding me? Where do you get the notion that the Cardinals were run out of anywhere? Do you just make this stuff up in your head. <p>Because Chicago had another football franchise and St. Louis had none, St. Louis invited the Cardinals to come to their city of they would have a professional football team. The Cardinals were welcomed with open arms and had great fan support almost the whole time they were there. (I know because I lived in the St. Louis area until 1982). <p> The Cardinals left St. Louis and moved to the Phoenix area in 1988 because they were told Phoenix was crying for an NFL team and they would receive wide support and a new stadium. St. Louis did not "run them out of town". As a matter of fact, that whole city was incensed that the Cardinals had left and that's when the Card bashing began in St. Louis.<p>The Cards were run out of Tempe? When? They wanted to stay, Tempe wanted them to stay, but Phoenix and Sky Harbor screwed that deal up by claiming the new stadium location would interfer with planes landing. What a farce!!<p>And your last statement is the most ludicrous of all. The Cards tried to force ASU to close down SDS and the golf course? That was one of the local legislators ideas. His idea of saving money and killing two birds with one stone. The Cards were as much against that as ASU. <p>Please try to get at least one thing in your argument correct.

 

[40yearfan]

Re: Re: Re: Yes

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Actually, the Cardinals were one of the 'obstructionists' to refuse to vote for instant replay for a long time. They are also obstructionist when it comes to signing their players and not utilizing new contract options.

Your point about ASU is w/o merit. Nothing to do with good faith bargaining.

Another article which mentions the Karsten site...

http://www.wranglernews.com/stadiumproposal.htm

As for the legislature putting that stadium site up, it was actually the Bidwills working through their state representative who pushed that bill.<b> They were trying to save on rental fees for the practice facility.<b>

You can ignore the facts, but it doesn't change them. Just quit trying to spin them.

NED

<p>See my bold lettering. Another studid statement. The Cardinals have a lease on their practice facility in Tempe that states as long as the Cards play regular season games in the City of Tempe, they have to pay Tempe for their practice facility. So if the legislature put a new stadium in Tempe, the Cards would still have to pay for that practice facility even if they didn't use it. Try again.