Very Fair Article on Cardinals/ASU

[Card Trader]

Please show me where ASU has proffited off the Cards

ok ok guys, let's lay off, obviously this guy is joking....he HAS to be to make a comment like this.

Last year was the ONLY year they 'lost' money.....how much did ASU make off the Super Bowl? Alcohol sales and advertising?


Also, if you'll notice......you have not been banned from this board for just simply having a differing opinion. Unlike some boards I know......

 

[sundevilfan99]

here you go

Originally posted by WizardOfAz
Well, Ned, I asked a couple of questions earlier, and never got an answer.

1) Where are Kevin White and Charles Harris? They are the one's who represented ASU during most of these events and would be able to fully support Gene Smith's point of view. I fine there silence curious, at best.

2) Show that there is no correlation to ASU violating the terms and conditions of the agreement with the Cardinals and the athletic department's inability to stay out of the "red".

3) Explain why the independent arbitrator ruled against ASU in May, 2002, yet this didn't become such a huge issue until May, 2003. Is ASU trying their case now, in the court of public opinion?

1. They have nothing to gain in coming out on this issue. It can only end up reflecting poorly on them, therefore they aren't going to say anything.

2. There is no correlation. Under Kevin White, ASU's athletic department was vigorously expanded with the belief that ASU football would continue winning and continue generating the large fan support and football revenues. When ASU failed to continue to win, football revenues went down, and the additional people whom Kevin White had hired had to be let go, but we're still feeling the effects of the expansion (in that we still have red ink).

3. The reason that it came to light now is that the Cards finally submitted their estimated damages. It was so over the top that it became newsworthy. Remember, all of ASU's dealing are on the public record, so the news media could have covered this at any time. It's just that when you start throwing out really big money that the media get interested.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[WizardOfAz]

Originally posted by Card Trader
Also, if you'll notice......you have not been banned from this board for just simply having a differing opinion. Unlike some boards I know......

I was thinking the same thing....Our posts were actually deleted and our access blocked from that other board.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Originally posted by Card Trader
Also, if you'll notice......you have not been banned from this board for just simply having a differing opinion. Unlike some boards I know......

To be fair, I am familar with sundevilfan99 from the DevilsDigest.com message boards (Sparky's Pigskin to be exact). I post there and have engaged in debate there without the threat of being banned.

I guess you could say they are the Good-Bad-Guys!

 

[sundevilfan99]

more responses

Originally posted by Card Trader
ok ok guys, let's lay off, obviously this guy is joking....he HAS to be to make a comment like this.

Also, if you'll notice......you have not been banned from this board for just simply having a differing opinion. Unlike some boards I know......

If you read my response in context - it should actually read, Please show me where ASU has profited heavily off the Cards.

The rest of your argument is a straw man argument and has nothing to do with what I've been posting here.

Considering the flaming and html attacks on the site, along with the deliberate attack of a not-for-profit website to try and run them out of existence, it does not surprise me that you were banned from the board.

Regardless, it's a private site, run by a person who is interested in ASU recruiting. It's nice that you're interested in how it's run, but not really relevant.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[Krangodnzr]

Re: more responses

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
If you read my response in context - it should actually read, Please show me where ASU has profited heavily off the Cards.

The rest of your argument is a straw man argument and has nothing to do with what I've been posting here.

Considering the flaming and html attacks on the site, along with the deliberate attack of a not-for-profit website to try and run them out of existence, it does not surprise me that you were banned from the board.

Regardless, it's a private site, run by a person who is interested in ASU recruiting. It's nice that you're interested in how it's run, but not really relevant.

SDF99 (aka NED)

No it has already been proven that ASU has profited more than 6 million off the Cards. It was more like 31 million altogether. The Athletic Department earned 6 million, but other departments earned more. Basically, that was a mistruth....

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: more responses

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
, along with the deliberate attack of a not-for-profit website to try and run them out of existence,

Those, sir, are fighting words.

 

[Card Trader]

Considering the flaming and html attacks on the site, along with the deliberate attack of a not-for-profit website to try and run them out of existence, it does not surprise me that you were banned from the board.

Are you talking about me? I made one post there.......

If you read my response in context - it should actually read, Please show me where ASU has profited heavily off the Cards.

Ah...backpedalling and twisting words....a sure sign of defeat and or not knowing what you are talking about. Smooth.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Re: Here you go

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
1. We'll start with the Cardinals first round draft picks for the last several years. Exactly how long does it take to get someone signed AFTER they've already been 'boxed in'? How difficult is it to get 1st rounders signed prior to a camp? Or to pre-season? Or to the first game? How about not offering competitive insurance policies to their first rounders which prevents them from going to rookie camps and summer workouts? This isn't the first year for that either.

But it's not just the players. How about 'back-dooring' their Tempe proposal after the successful TSA authorization (which required the support of Glendale - and which they would not have had if the Bidwills had been up front with their Rio Salado stadium plan). How about trying to force ASU into playing in their stadium, while tearing down SDS and ripping up ASU's golf course? - through the legislature of course, but it was the Bidwills behind it. How about when he turned down Colangelo's interest in building a dual purpose stadium? Shall we go back to their history in St. Louis where they are despised? Or Chicago?

2. They didn't promise the Cardinals anything. Period. They tried to negotiate with the Cardinals, but that (as so many others have found out) was futile.

3. Without ASU the Cards wouldn't have a place to play in AZ - I would say that is a pretty big benefit. Perhaps they would have gone to another city. Please show me where ASU has proffited off the Cards. ASU's books are open. The Card's books are closed. ASU has netted $6.1M over 15 years. That is roughly $407,000 per year. Last year ASU lost money. Plus, when you factor in the costs of litigation, the loss of revenue do to the field not being available, the degenerative field conditions due to the Cards use, etc. that would reduce the overall net.

SDF99 (aka NED)

I only have enough time right now to address your first series of points...

1.a This is true in past years. But as was evidenced by both 1st rounders signing injury-waiver agreements that under Rod Graves, the Cardinals are making progress in the sytle of football operations. This will be the first year that I can remember that all draftees will be at rookies-camp come July 1st.

1.b The entire stadium issue has been a fiasco. It did look very suspicious the way that the TSA originally chose the Tempe site. But this kind of thing is not retricted to the Bidwills. Anyone who has lived here for any amount of time realizes that this is Arizona politics at it's "finest".

1.c The issue of tearing down Sun Devil and destroying ASU's golf course is something I not familar with, please fill me in...

1.d Not going into a partnership with Colangelo on a dual-purpose stadium falls into the same catagory with me as does the Cardinals not partnering with ASU in relation to Sun Devil Stadium back in the early nineties when they realized that Phoenix would not built them a stadium. That being a missed opportunity to really grow deep roots in the Valley, and foster goodwill with Valley residents. Arizonan's resent "Carpetbaggers", and tieing themselves in with an established locally "grown" enitity like ASU of the Colangelo group would have given the Cardinals a better public image.

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: more responses

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
No it has already been proven that ASU has profited more than 6 million off the Cards. It was more like 31 million altogether. The Athletic Department earned 6 million, but other departments earned more. Basically, that was a mistruth....

Other departments may have grossed $25M (over 15 years) but I do not believe that was the net. It also has nothing to do with ASU's athletic department which is run as a seperate entity within the university. The Cards are suing the Athletic Department - not the university.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: here you go

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
1. They have nothing to gain in coming out on this issue. It can only end up reflecting poorly on them, therefore they aren't going to say anything.

(NED)

How could the support of White and/or Harris doing anything but support the position of the current administration? And, how could it hurt them professionally to come to the aid of the place of former employment?

 

[sundevilfan99]

sorry...

Originally posted by Card Trader
Ah...backpedalling and twisting words....a sure sign of defeat and or not knowing what you are talking about. Smooth.

No I'm not. I was referencing a specific comment made by another poster and omitted one of the words he used.

I can understand that you wouldn't be able to figure that out.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[Krangodnzr]

Re: Re: Re: more responses

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Other departments may have grossed $25M (over 15 years) but I do not believe that was the net. It also has nothing to do with ASU's athletic department which is run as a seperate entity within the university. The Cards are suing the Athletic Department - not the university.

SDF99 (aka NED)

Ah yes it was net....not gross.

But my point remains. The Cards have given ASU 31 million in revenues. IF ASU can't profit greatly off that figure, then something is wrong.

That also doesn't include the financing associated with improvements made to the stadium, and other cash amounts that the Cards have given ASU.

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: Re: Re: Re: more responses

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Ah yes it was net....not gross.

But my point remains. The Cards have given ASU 31 million in revenues. IF ASU can't profit greatly off that figure, then something is wrong.

Maybe the same guy that is reviewing their legal contracts is balancing the checkbook!

 

[Card Trader]

. Please show me where ASU has proffited off the Cards

Actually, that's pretty cut and dry there sparky. It shows that you are under the misinformed understanding that ASU doesn't make profit off sharing their facilities with the Cardinals.

Using the word 'heavily' is very subjective, where I would say 1 million dollars would be a heavy profit someone else would say not. My question is this, how much money would ASU have made had the Cardinals NOT been in ASU? Do you think the Fiesta Bowl would be what it is today? Do you really have ANY idea how much money was made during the Super Bowl?

Don't play the semantics game......you state one thing, when it is refuted you backpedal and say you "REALLY" meant this or that.

 

[sundevilfan99]

more responses

Originally posted by Cardinals.Ken
1.a This is true in past years. But as was evidenced by both 1st rounders signing injury-waiver agreements that under Rod Graves, the Cardinals are making progress in the sytle of football operations. This will be the first year that I can remember that all draftees will be at rookies-camp come July 1st.

1.b The entire stadium issue has been a fiasco. It did look very suspicious the way that the TSA originally chose the Tempe site. But this kind of thing is not retricted to the Bidwills. Anyone who has lived here for any amount of time realizes that this is Arizona politics at it's "finest".

1.c The issue of tearing down Sun Devil and destroying ASU's golf course is something I not familar with, please fill me in...

1.d Not going into a partnership with Colangelo on a dual-purpose stadium falls into the same catagory with me as does the Cardinals not partnering with ASU in relation to Sun Devil Stadium back in the early nineties when they realized that Phoenix would not built them a stadium. That being a missed opportunity to really grow deep roots in the Valley, and foster goodwill with Valley residents. Arizonan's resent "Carpetbaggers", and tieing themselves in with an established locally "grown" enitity like ASU of the Colangelo group would have given the Cardinals a better public image.

1a and 1b you basically agree with me, although you do throw in the AZ politics caveat. I agree with the caveat, but believe that much of it could have been avoided if the Cards had simply got on board with the Glendale site in the first place - or been above board with their original proposals. I don't care if you call it 'politics as usual' - maybe we should start having some unusual politics? Like a little more honesty?

1c - shortly after the FAA/Phoenix nixed the site in the flight path, the Bidwills went after a parcel of land on the Rio Salado just north of Karsten Golf Course. They wanted to take the land (which has already been planned for development by ASU - first class bio-research facility), and part of Karsten Golf Course (which would effectively kill the on-campus Golf Course option for ASU, not to mention really hurt future donations to ASU since donors would not know that their endowments would be recognized in perpetuity). And then they figured that ASU could come play in their stadium and pay rent and SDS would be torn down. When they went after it, it raised such a furor that it was quickly shot down.

1d - you basically agree with me? I can't really tell from your answer.

In any case, I put forth those examples as proof that the Cardinals are not above board bargainers, and no one has been able to show me where they are. Or tell me why their dealings with ASU would be any different.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[sundevilfan99]

re:

Originally posted by Card Trader
Actually, that's pretty cut and dry there sparky. It shows that you are under the misinformed understanding that ASU doesn't make profit off sharing their facilities with the Cardinals.

Using the word 'heavily' is very subjective, where I would say 1 million dollars would be a heavy profit someone else would say not. My question is this, how much money would ASU have made had the Cardinals NOT been in ASU? Do you think the Fiesta Bowl would be what it is today? Do you really have ANY idea how much money was made during the Super Bowl?

Don't play the semantics game......you state one thing, when it is refuted you backpedal and say you "REALLY" meant this or that.

I didn't use the word 'heavily' to begin with - someone else did. Yes, the Fiesta Bowl would be what it is today regardless of the Cardinals. The Fiesta Bowl was a successful bowl game long before the Cardinals came to town, and it's success now has nothing to do with the Cardinals.

I'm not playing a semantics game, simply using the same verbage as the person I was responding to.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[sundevilfan99]

Re: Re: Re: Re: more responses

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Ah yes it was net....not gross.

But my point remains. The Cards have given ASU 31 million in revenues. IF ASU can't profit greatly off that figure, then something is wrong.

That also doesn't include the financing associated with improvements made to the stadium, and other cash amounts that the Cards have given ASU.

I know that it's difficult to understand - but the Athletic Department is operated under a separate budget from the rest of the university. It is the athletic department which is being sued - not the university.

The other improvements were very customary and are no more and in fact far less than what other NFL teams which have been hosted by college teams have done for the college venues.

SDF99(aka NED)

 

[Sandan]

Sundevil, I was banned from that board and I never flame anybody. The worst I do is taunt the my "stooges" at Cards Corner.

Second, you need to catch up on current events. The Cardinals have indeed commited over $100M to the new stadium and contracted to cover overrun costs.

I say $100M+ as I don't know the exact figure but I'm somebody will supply it. By my calculation that is around 1/3 of the project cost.

As I don't know the exact figure I can't say if it is exactly 1/3 but it is certainly in that region.

As for signing players, what does that have to do with anything. You have no knowledge of the reasons for that so you seem to put an ASU is "good" Cardinals are "bad" assumption on everything.

The few facts we have in this case are that ASU appears to be in violation of their contract.

I also hope this does not end up hurting ASU athletics but frankly if it does it is the management of said Dept. that is to blame not the Cardinals. That is why they are going public to try to save themselves.

It's an old corporate ploy, if you sling enough mud around for long enough, some of it will stick.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Re: more responses

1a and 1b you basically agree with me, although you do throw in the AZ politics caveat. I agree with the caveat, but believe that much of it could have been avoided if the Cards had simply got on board with the Glendale site in the first place - or been above board with their original proposals. I don't care if you call it 'politics as usual' - maybe we should start having some unusual politics? Like a little more honesty?

Agreed, "Politics as Unusual" would be refreshing and welcome. I think you missed my point about the Cardinals slowly, but surely, entering the 20th century with how they run their football operations. Of course, this is the 21st century, but that's another topic.

1c - shortly after the FAA/Phoenix nixed the site in the flight path, the Bidwills went after a parcel of land on the Rio Salado just north of Karsten Golf Course. They wanted to take the land (which has already been planned for development by ASU - first class bio-research facility), and part of Karsten Golf Course (which would effectively kill the on-campus Golf Course option for ASU, not to mention really hurt future donations to ASU since donors would not know that their endowments would be recognized in perpetuity). And then they figured that ASU could come play in their stadium and pay rent and SDS would be torn down. When they went after it, it raised such a furor that it was quickly shot down.

If that was the case, then a plan like that deserves to get shotdown!

1d - you basically agree with me? I can't really tell from your answer.

Yes, we are in agreement. My allergy medication may be contributing to my inability to make a coherent point.

The point I was trying to make is that the Bidwills missed an opporunity to partner with either ASU or Colangelo. Both are respected members of the community here in the Valley. A partnership with either would have been a good PR move, and a sound business decision, in my opinion at least...

I can understand why they didn't though, and why the Cardinals have always moved from a stand point that they had to have their own venue in which to play. Since their time in Chicago, the Cardinals franchise has had to share a stadium with someone.

 

[Sandan]

Notice you are not banned and we encourage a dialouge

 

[sundevilfan99]

I am not arguing the number

Originally posted by nidan
Sundevil, I was banned from that board and I never flame anybody. The worst I do is taunt the my "stooges" at Cards Corner.

Second, you need to catch up on current events. The Cardinals have indeed commited over $100M to the new stadium and contracted to cover overrun costs.

I say $100M+ as I don't know the exact figure but I'm somebody will supply it. By my calculation that is around 1/3 of the project cost.

As I don't know the exact figure I can't say if it is exactly 1/3 but it is certainly in that region.

As for signing players, what does that have to do with anything. You have no knowledge of the reasons for that so you seem to put an ASU is "good" Cardinals are "bad" assumption on everything.

The few facts we have in this case are that ASU appears to be in violation of their contract.

I also hope this does not end up hurting ASU athletics but frankly if it does it is the management of said Dept. that is to blame not the Cardinals. That is why they are going public to try to save themselves.

It's an old corporate ploy, if you sling enough mud around for long enough, some of it will stick.

But I believe much of that $100M is being backed and will be paid for by the NFL, thus the Bidwills commitment is much smaller.

I mention the player signings as evidence of the Bidwills bargaining in bad faith. If they can't bargain in good faith with their employees, why should I believe that they'll bargain in good faith with anyone, including ASU? Especially when they don't appear to have bargained in good faith with anyone.

Further, I do know the reasons for that - the Cardinals are cheap. Just look at their insurance policy fiasco along with first round signings. It is not hard to read the writing on the wall.

SDF99 (aka NED)

 

[WizardOfAz]

Re: I am not arguing the number

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
But I believe much of that $100M is being backed and will be paid for by the NFL, thus the Bidwills commitment is much smaller.


(NED)

Just go ahead and post the first thing that comes to mind, there Ned, regardless of any basis in fact.

 

[ajcardfan]

Re: I am not arguing the number

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
But I believe much of that $100M is being backed and will be paid for by the NFL, thus the Bidwills commitment is much smaller.

Actually, the NFL's and NFLPA money is in the form of a loan. It has to be paid back, so yes, the Bidwill's are putting up all of that money. Without the Bidwill's ponying up, there'd be no Super Bowl in 2008 or 2009, whenever we get it. The Super Bowl dwarves the Fiesta Bowl and any sort of ASU event. You should thank Bidwill for spending so much on the new stadium, it's a great boon to the Valley.

And, you want to know when it really will be proven how much ASU made off the Cardinals? Once their gone and the AD starts crying poverty and the Sun Angels get really high pressure to up their donations.

 

[Sandan]

Re: I am not arguing the number

Originally posted by sundevilfan99
Further, I do know the reasons for that - the Cardinals are cheap. Just look at their insurance policy fiasco along with first round signings. It is not hard to read the writing on the wall.

SDF99 (aka NED)

Hmm, the rookies they are having problems with, would they be ones in camp with signed waivers?

Even if I agreed that they were cheap or bad, it does seem to be changing.

btw: I don't make that assumption but just for the purposes of this discussion