Yuku free message boards

The NoL successfully expanded at the turn of the millennium (when .com bubble burst) and some places in the country are still growing in spite of the real estate financing bubble and $122/barrel oil. Some places (like Gary) have had hard times for years (even decades) and investing to turn that around.

It's a factor, but there are always people and places that have an interest, drive and financing to do it. The proof is easy! One need look no further than current top story on BPD where they're talking about $10-12M for a ballpark at Heartland College in Normal. Both the FL and NoL are vying for it --and I'll place my bets on Bill Lee every time (sorry Clark).

The FL can be "home town" for several very good reasons:

1. They focused mainly on smaller cities, the type the NoL seemed to ignore after Fargo.
2. League efforts have been much more flexible, taking on old facilities and trying to work more closely with communities.
3. FL Roster rules mean younger and (maybe?) more local talent.
4. Its growth has always been tempered by location. They've kept distances lower and therefore more "localized."
5. Keeping costs lower over all (probably?) translates to lower prices all around affordable to fans.
6. Having the same commish for over a decade provides continuity and long-term relationships.

It's not as if the FL is perfect or hasn't had its own problems, it clearly has with franchises "put on the shelf" several times. It's just that it now stands out as a "paragon of 'stability & compatibility'" to compared to the contentious and combative recent years of the NoL. That's going to be appealing to skeptical communities.

And the NoL swallowed that pill a bit late.

The "NoL brain trust" decided to continue with "business as usual" for too long. They decided back around 2000 that they could/should go it alone and did little or nothing to work with other leagues. This was directly against Wolff's approach which lead to the merger years ('99-'02) that the brain trust no longer.

Expanding into AB first, instead of continuing focus on Michigan (where most efforts had been), was a "short term" gain for long term issues. The AB clubs could have been successful in the NoL but between the travel subsidies (which they originally agreed to then almost immediately rejected), loss of the original Japanese Calgary ownership group, then growing animosities between them the situation soured (quickly).

That attitude clearly extended to the AA split where the NoL basically (also) said "good riddance" while still trying to lock some clubs (which they otherwise would dismiss as "marginal" like SC and SF) in. The "no interleague ever" attitude helped push the AA away. The "temporary" nature of St. Joe suggests that the AA at its start really needed a 10th team --something that interleague could have provided with the NoL giving some bargaining power. But the "trust" continued their public (and private) war against the departed clubs.

The NoL needs some visible stability. The "Super 6" are likely to be that, though not they way they might like -- stable at 6 and only those 6 clubs.

Times have changed and so as the league. I think it's clear that they recognize that they can't do that. The comments about inter-league play with the AA, the effort to get into Wichita, and the inability to expand for the past several years in general.

As for the teams themselves, they're hardly new to any of this. The Stable 6 have been operating successfully for over 5 full years or more. Nearly all of them have had the same owners and most of the same front office management --usually promoting from within (as was the case with the GMs in both Fargo & Winnipeg). The only major turnover has been Gary's ownership, and some staff in Joliet and Schaumburg. Fargo, Winnipeg and KCK are pretty much unchanged for several years in the front off (excluding interns and lower-level staff).

The issue you're talking about tends to be about new clubs --like what happened in Calgary and eventually what happened in Edmonton. Those clubs were new, with new owners and new staff. Edmonton kept on some of the Trappers staff but internal disputes lead to mid-season departures. Those issues are league-related when the league doesn't vet new owners and/or require they hire experienced staff. This is what Wolff required at the start and why the '93 NoL was run by MiLB-experienced owners.

BTW: The NoL only had one "road warrior" team and that was Gary in 2002 because their ballpark wasn't done in time. Some leagues have endured for years with road warrior teams, the clubs just have to accept paying the extra league fees to cover that expense. The NoL owners have rarely shown interest in such investment --which is reflected by the "weak leadership" of the commissioners (the board has always had them on a short leash) and almost nonexistent league-wide efforts or initiatives and many of the dubious cost saving measures that have been proposed from time to time (like reducing umpire crews back to 2 or buying cheaper Spalding baseballs).

Here we go again trying to decipher the cryptic crazy nonsense.

doesnt the el just say uncle to a loop like mwl ?

Huh? Who is "el?"

What does the MWL have to do with anything? The MWL isn't growing and its only contribution to indy ball --any league-- would be to move a club thereby freeing up a stadium. The MWL is a fairly static entity and tends to announce its actions years in advance.

lest say both fl n nl pks were basically the same an nl club would still be worth more since it has a higher payroll regardless of the market since the fl's average attendance is better than break even in the nl .

Uh... so are you trying to say that the NoL higher expenses (which you limit solely to payroll and we must assume really means "salary cap" which is NOT the same) make it more valuable than franchise that actually have better attendance (and should, as a result be more profitable)? More idiocy, I think.

The value of a franchise, which also has ZERO to do with league expansion. A NoL franchise today is clearly not worth as much as it was before the previous two splits. Given how hard it is to sell an indy ball club, what really matters is the profit margin. If that's the case, FL franchise may do better. In fact, a highly successful FL franchise, perhaps like the one in Marion, may be more valuable (if attendance stays high like last season) than Gary or Joliet (if the ballparks are "basically the same.")

clark cant and shouldnt get into a bidding war with bill over operational costs since the nl's product is better than the fl's and a better product should cost more .

Boy does that make NO sense at all.

First: There can't be a "bidding war" by Clark since he's not the one buying. He is the one selling franchises and even getting a commission on each sale he makes.

Next, operational costs of a franchise have NOTHING to do with building or leasing stadium (unless someone's really concerned about the bottom line and the ability of the lessor to cover the lease) -that's assuming your talking about finding a location. If we're to assume you're changing the subject to dealing with prospective owners, he may want to keep the price high but rumors suggest that recent struggles have done a lot to reduce the franchise fee --which is the only place where Clark might have any say in negotiations with prospective owners. For example, rumor has it that Gidney was given a huge discount to take over Calgary while the NoL struggled to find an "emergency owner" to take over when the Japanese group walked away.

As for "better product" that's a fan's perspective (and one some FL fans might want to dispute) and (again) has little to do with any business decision a prospective owner (or community) might make. As much as I love the NoL and AA, if I were a businessman with no personal/emotional biases towards the league (which is most businessmen are, would and should be), I'd be looking mainly at my potential profit margin and ROI. It might be nice to have something that was a "premier product" but if that means I'm losing money when a perfectly good alternative means a better bottom line, why would/should I pay more for less?

The place where the league itself matters is the real estate agent's mantra: "location, location, location." If I'm looking at locations more convenient to one league, then I'll consider it more. For example, I would NOT consider putting an NoL franchise in California or Texas. The fact remains that the leagues each have a territory and some overlap. On that count the NoL faces a lot of major challenges since it's got a lot of overlap with three different leagues.

On the topic of "better product" and league competition

I'd add on that count that MiLB franchises always trounce indy ones --even though the baseball played can often be glorified drills. Besides the fact that MiLB franchises are cheaper to run (the parent club covers salaries), fans love the idea they're seeing future stars. That the games they see are not about winning as they are in indy ball. They're almost solely about player development with coaches frequently having decisions made for them.

That sort of thing even happens in indy ball when a club like FtW signs a major prospect like Hochevar or Scherzer arrive. The scouts all want to know when the guy's going to pitch. The manager's got to make sure that everyone gets a good look at him. And, to help that player, he follows through with it even if the entire "circus" has negative consequences for the club's record.

Correction...

My statement in my previous post (and now corrected) should have read:

For example, I would NOT consider putting an NoL franchise in California or Texas.

Sorry for causing people to start talking about those areas. They're not NoL territory since the MiLB, GBL, AA and other leagues are already well situated in them.

I also agree with barkeep, this has been rehashed in other topics. Even this one is repeating itself.