More games that count, perhaps as early as August 2011?
That's exactly what NFL commissioner Roger Goodell wants.
There are several hurdles before the league can expand its regular season from 16 to 17 or 18 games. Among them is reaching a new collective bargaining agreement with the players' union.
Still, the commissioner hopes to present a proposal to the owners in May after the matter was discussed at length this week at the owners meetings.
"It's possible that we could vote in May, but we want to have core discussions on this," Goodell said Wednesday. "Anytime you have change, there is some reluctance. But it's clear we don't need four preseason games anymore."
Goodell said the league has not seriously discussed the subject with its broadcast partners. He couldn't imagine them not being interested in more meaningful games.
"I think the quality of NFL programming, that every one of our network partners would say, if they have the chance to have more regular-season programming, they'd be interested in it," Goodell said. "A key point is the fans also recognize players they want to see are not in those preseason games; that's why they are not attractive. They want to see those players play."
As for those players and their union, Goodell recognizes an expanded schedule will be part of CBA negotiations. Owners opted out of the current deal last year, and it expires after the 2010 schedule, which would be an uncapped season.
"Under the current agreement, additional regular-season games would not be covered," Goodell said. "I think our most important priority after we get done with our internal analysis is talking to our key partners, and that includes the players. I think we want to make sure that the right dialogue takes place before we make any final votes."
DeMaurice Smith, the NFLPA's incoming executive director, wants any decision that affects the players to happen collaboratively.
"His hope is that the concerns and interests of the players will be seriously considered," said George Atallah, a director at the public relations firm Qorvis Communications and a spokesman for Smith during his transition. "He was elected by the players to be their advocate on such issues and is more than ready to serve them."
Among the issues team owners must discuss is when the regular season would begin; how many bye weeks would be scheduled; how deep into February the playoffs and Super Bowl would go; and when the offseason programs -- including the combine and the draft -- would be held.
Plus, where would the extra games be played, particularly with 17 of them?
One possibility, an idea Goodell and senior vice president of sales and marketing Mark Waller first mentioned several years ago, would be 17 neutral-site games, including some abroad. That would enable the league to step up its efforts internationally, a particular goal of Goodell's.
"There's been some discussion about that," Goodell said. "That's been one of the appealing features of converting preseason games into regular-season games is it gives you more inventory, more games that you can take to neutral sites, either internationally or domestically. So that is a compelling feature."
Another option would be having one conference play nine home games during a season, and the other conference do so the next year.
An 18-game schedule, obviously, would eliminate such concerns. It also would mean dropping two preseason contests.
"Fans don't believe preseason games are up to our standards," Goodell said.
Clearly, neither does he.
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
www.outlawsportsradio.com
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The NFL headed for no salary cap in 2010
The NFL is headed toward a season without a salary cap next year, and it will take an unexpected breakthrough in the sport's labor negotiations to avoid it.
Negotiators for owners and the NFL Players Association have made modest progress toward resolving the major financial issues at stake in ongoing discussions about a possible extension of their labor deal, sources familiar with the deliberations said. However, people on both sides of the negotiations said in recent days they consider it unlikely that the owners and the players' union will complete a deal in time to prevent next season from being played minus a salary cap. In fact, one source, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly on the talks, said it's "becoming close to a certainty."
A system that has helped to promote competitive balance among the teams since being put in place in 1993, greatly boosting the sport's prosperity and popularity, would be replaced by a system in which teams could spend what they wish on players while facing other restrictions on free agency that NFL officials say would serve to preserve competitive balance.
"The forefathers of our league put personal interests aside to promote competitive balance," said Peter Schaffer, a veteran NFL agent. "That prevented the NFL from turning into Major League Baseball with George Steinbrenner and the Yankees. ... Right now you have two of the smallest-market teams out there, Indianapolis and New Orleans, having these wonderful seasons. The salary cap is part of that. If it goes away, it will eventually affect competitive balance."
For years, revenue-sharing among the teams and a salary cap to regulate spending on players have been fundamental components of the NFL's successful business formula. The teams share the revenues from their lucrative national television contracts equally, with the idea being to keep a franchise in Green Bay, Wis., on relatively equal financial footing with a team in New York.
The salary cap has gone hand in hand with that, keeping one team from too greatly outspending another to assemble its roster. It is a flexible ceiling on player salaries, but it is designed to make a team pay a future price for any extravagant spending. The system stayed in place through a series of extensions of the labor deal negotiated by former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw, the late executive director of the union. Upshaw said that the best thing he could do for the players was to ensure they received a fair share of the sport's revenues and then do everything he could to help the owners increase those revenues.
Problems arose before the last extension of the labor deal was completed in 2006. There was a growing revenue disparity between the league's wealthiest franchises and other teams after some owners found ways to maximize revenue streams not shared with other teams. Upshaw also wanted the players to receive a larger portion of the league's revenues under the salary cap.
The deal approved by the owners in 2006 gave the players about 60 percent of total league revenues. The owners also approved a supplemental revenue-sharing plan that was to transfer at least $100 million annually, and potentially up to $200 million per year if the labor deal stayed in effect for its full six-year duration, from higher-revenue to lower-revenue teams. That was needed, owners said at the time, for some teams to meet their increased salary cap obligations to the players under the new deal. But owners found the deal to be too expensive and exercised a clause in the agreement to end the labor deal two years early. That made next season the final season in the deal, and this season the final one in the agreement with a salary cap.
The two sides always had made the final season in their labor agreements a non-capped season, believing that both parties would be wary of venturing into the great unknown of a season without a salary cap. That worked in the past but might not work this time in the first set of negotiations overseen by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith, who replaced Upshaw as executive director of the players' union.
There also would be new free agency rules that would go into effect automatically for an uncapped season. A player would need six seasons of NFL service time to be eligible for unrestricted free agency, instead of the four seasons now required. Each team would be given an additional transition-player tag to use, along with its current allotment of one franchise player or transition player designation, to restrict the mobility of its players in free agency. And the top eight playoff teams could sign a free agent only to replace a lost player.
According to the most recent figures available, 237 players would be eligible for unrestricted free agency this offseason in an uncapped system. An additional 203 will be restricted free agents under an uncapped system -- enabling their teams to retain them by matching any contract offers from other clubs -- instead of being eligible for unrestricted free agency this offseason. That group of 203 players who would lose some of their free-agent mobility includes Washington Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell.
The prevailing sentiment within the sport for now is that the owners and players are likely to go through a season without a salary cap in 2010, then will try to negotiate a deal before the 2011 season could be threatened by a work stoppage
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
www.outlawsportsradio.com
Negotiators for owners and the NFL Players Association have made modest progress toward resolving the major financial issues at stake in ongoing discussions about a possible extension of their labor deal, sources familiar with the deliberations said. However, people on both sides of the negotiations said in recent days they consider it unlikely that the owners and the players' union will complete a deal in time to prevent next season from being played minus a salary cap. In fact, one source, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to comment publicly on the talks, said it's "becoming close to a certainty."
A system that has helped to promote competitive balance among the teams since being put in place in 1993, greatly boosting the sport's prosperity and popularity, would be replaced by a system in which teams could spend what they wish on players while facing other restrictions on free agency that NFL officials say would serve to preserve competitive balance.
"The forefathers of our league put personal interests aside to promote competitive balance," said Peter Schaffer, a veteran NFL agent. "That prevented the NFL from turning into Major League Baseball with George Steinbrenner and the Yankees. ... Right now you have two of the smallest-market teams out there, Indianapolis and New Orleans, having these wonderful seasons. The salary cap is part of that. If it goes away, it will eventually affect competitive balance."
For years, revenue-sharing among the teams and a salary cap to regulate spending on players have been fundamental components of the NFL's successful business formula. The teams share the revenues from their lucrative national television contracts equally, with the idea being to keep a franchise in Green Bay, Wis., on relatively equal financial footing with a team in New York.
The salary cap has gone hand in hand with that, keeping one team from too greatly outspending another to assemble its roster. It is a flexible ceiling on player salaries, but it is designed to make a team pay a future price for any extravagant spending. The system stayed in place through a series of extensions of the labor deal negotiated by former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw, the late executive director of the union. Upshaw said that the best thing he could do for the players was to ensure they received a fair share of the sport's revenues and then do everything he could to help the owners increase those revenues.
Problems arose before the last extension of the labor deal was completed in 2006. There was a growing revenue disparity between the league's wealthiest franchises and other teams after some owners found ways to maximize revenue streams not shared with other teams. Upshaw also wanted the players to receive a larger portion of the league's revenues under the salary cap.
The deal approved by the owners in 2006 gave the players about 60 percent of total league revenues. The owners also approved a supplemental revenue-sharing plan that was to transfer at least $100 million annually, and potentially up to $200 million per year if the labor deal stayed in effect for its full six-year duration, from higher-revenue to lower-revenue teams. That was needed, owners said at the time, for some teams to meet their increased salary cap obligations to the players under the new deal. But owners found the deal to be too expensive and exercised a clause in the agreement to end the labor deal two years early. That made next season the final season in the deal, and this season the final one in the agreement with a salary cap.
The two sides always had made the final season in their labor agreements a non-capped season, believing that both parties would be wary of venturing into the great unknown of a season without a salary cap. That worked in the past but might not work this time in the first set of negotiations overseen by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith, who replaced Upshaw as executive director of the players' union.
There also would be new free agency rules that would go into effect automatically for an uncapped season. A player would need six seasons of NFL service time to be eligible for unrestricted free agency, instead of the four seasons now required. Each team would be given an additional transition-player tag to use, along with its current allotment of one franchise player or transition player designation, to restrict the mobility of its players in free agency. And the top eight playoff teams could sign a free agent only to replace a lost player.
According to the most recent figures available, 237 players would be eligible for unrestricted free agency this offseason in an uncapped system. An additional 203 will be restricted free agents under an uncapped system -- enabling their teams to retain them by matching any contract offers from other clubs -- instead of being eligible for unrestricted free agency this offseason. That group of 203 players who would lose some of their free-agent mobility includes Washington Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell.
The prevailing sentiment within the sport for now is that the owners and players are likely to go through a season without a salary cap in 2010, then will try to negotiate a deal before the 2011 season could be threatened by a work stoppage
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
www.outlawsportsradio.com
Who is going to the Playoffs in the NFL?
1. Indianapolis Colts (14-1) – Clinched top seed in AFC.
Sunday: at Buffalo, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 704)
2. San Diego Chargers (12-3) – Clinched No. 2 seed and first-round playoff bye with win at Tennessee.
Sunday: vs. Washington, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 714)
3. New England Patriots (10-5) – Clinched AFC East title with win vs. Jacksonville. Lead Bengals based on better strength of victory (Patriots have beaten teams with combined 65-85 record; Bengals have beaten teams that are a combined 60-89).
Sunday: at Houston, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 706)
4. Cincinnati Bengals (10-5) – Clinched AFC North title with win vs. Kansas City.
Sunday: at Jets, 8:20 ET (NBC)
5. New York Jets (8-7) – Currently No. 5 seed based on better conference record than Houston (6-5 to 5-6) and better record in common games (3-1) than Denver (2-2) and Baltimore (0-4).Would clinch No. 5 seed with win. Eliminated with loss to Cincinnati (because Jets then would not beat Denver in common games tie).
Sunday: vs. Cincinnati, 8:20 ET (NBC)
6. Baltimore Ravens (8-7) – Currently No. 6 seed because of better division record than Pittsburgh (3-3 to 2-4), better conference record than Houston (6-5 to 5-6) and head-to-head victory vs. Denver. Would clinch No. 5 seed with win and New York loss. Would clinch No. 6 seed with win and New York win. Eliminated with loss.
Sunday: at Oakland, 4:15 ET (CBS/DirecTV 717)
7. Denver Broncos (8-7) – Currently No. 7 seed due to better conference record than Houston (6-5 to 5-6). Would clinch No. 5 seed with New York loss and Baltimore loss and Houston loss and Pittsburgh loss and Jacksonville loss. Would clinch No. 5 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and either Pittsburgh loss or Houston win. Would clinch No. 6 seed with win and 1) New York loss or Baltimore loss (not both), and 2) Pittsburgh and/or Houston loss. Would clinch No. 6 seed with loss and either 1) New York loss and Baltimore loss and Houston loss and Miami loss and Jacksonville loss, or 2) Pittsburgh loss and losses by three of the following: New York, Baltimore, Houston, Jacksonville. Eliminated with 1) Jets win and Ravens win, or 2) Steelers win and Texans loss and either Jets win or Ravens win. Eliminated with loss and 1) Pittsburgh win and New York win or Baltimore win or Houston win or Jacksonville win, or 2) Miami win and wins by at least two of the following: New York, Baltimore, Houston, Jacksonville.
Sunday: vs. Kansas City, 4:15 ET (CBS/DirecTV 716)
8. Houston Texans (8-7) – Currently 8th in AFC because of better record than Pittsburgh in common games (3-1 to 1-3). Would clinch No. 5 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss. Would clinch No. 6 seed with win and losses by two of the following: New York, Baltimore, Denver. Eliminated with loss or wins by at least two of the following: New York, Baltimore, Denver.
Sunday: vs. New England, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 706)
9. Pittsburgh Steelers (8-7) – Would clinch No. 5 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and Houston loss. Would clinch No. 6 seed with win and either 1) New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss and Houston win, or 2) Houston loss and either New York loss or Baltimore loss. Eliminated with loss or 1) New York and Baltimore wins, or 2) Houston win and New York, Baltimore or Denver win.
Sunday: at Miami, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 707)
10. Miami Dolphins (7-8) – Currently No. 10 seed based on head-to-head win over Jacksonville but would lose multiple-team 8-8 ties with Jacksonville because of worse conference record (7-5 to 6-6). Would be No. 6 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss and Houston loss and Jacksonville loss. Eliminated with loss/tie or New York win/tie or Baltimore win/tie or Denver win/tie or Houston win/tie or Jacksonville win.
Sunday: vs. Pittsburgh, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 707)
11. Jacksonville Jaguars (7-8) – Would win all 8-8 ties because of 7-5 conference record. Would be No. 5 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss and Houston loss and Pittsburgh loss. Would be No. 6 seed with win and 1) New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss and Houston loss and Miami loss, or 2) Pittsburgh loss and loss by exactly one of the following: New York, Baltimore, Denver, Houston. Eliminated with loss or wins by at least two of the following: New York, Baltimore, Denver, Houston.
Sunday: at Cleveland, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 705)
NFC PLAYOFF PICTURE
1. New Orleans Saints (13-2) – Clinched top seed with Minnesota loss at Chicago.
Sunday: at Carolina, 1 ET (Fox/DirecTV 709)
2. Philadelphia Eagles (11-4) – Clinched playoff spot but would lose NFC East tiebreaker with Dallas due to head-to-head sweep. Would be No. 2 seed with win or both tie and Minnesota loss/tie. Would be No. 5 seed with loss and Green Bay loss/tie. Would be No. 6 seed with loss and Green Bay win.
Sunday: at Dallas, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 713)
3. Minnesota Vikings (11-4) – Have clinched NFC North title because of head-to-head sweep vs. Green Bay. Would clinch No. 2 seed and first-round playoff bye with win and Philadelphia loss/tie, or tie and Philadelphia loss. Would be No. 3 seed with Philadelphia win plus Minnesota win and/or Arizona loss. Would be No. 4 seed with loss and Arizona win.
Sunday: vs. Giants, 1 ET (Fox/DirecTV 710)
4. Arizona Cardinals (10-5) – Clinched NFC West title. Would be No. 2 seed with win and Philadelphia loss and Minnesota loss. Would be No. 3 seed with win and either Philadelphia loss or Minnesota loss (not both). Would be No. 4 seed with loss/tie or both Philadelphia win/tie and Minnesota win/tie.
Sunday: vs. Green Bay, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 715)
5. Green Bay Packers (10-5) – Clinched playoff berth with win vs. Seattle and Giants loss vs. Carolina. Currently No. 5 seed because of head-to-head win vs. Dallas. Would be No. 5 seed with win or Dallas loss, or tie and Dallas tie. Would be No. 6 seed with loss/tie and Dallas win.
Sunday: at Arizona, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 715)
6. Dallas Cowboys (10-5) – Clinched playoff berth with win at Washington. Would be No. 2 seed with win and Minnesota loss and Arizona loss. Would be No. 3 seed with win and 1) Minnesota win and Arizona loss, or 2) Arizona win and Minnesota loss. Would be No. 4 seed with win and Minnesota win/tie and Arizona win. Would be No. 6 seed with loss (Would be No. 5 seed with tie and Green Bay loss).
Sunday: vs. Philadelphia, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 713)
Sunday: at Buffalo, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 704)
2. San Diego Chargers (12-3) – Clinched No. 2 seed and first-round playoff bye with win at Tennessee.
Sunday: vs. Washington, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 714)
3. New England Patriots (10-5) – Clinched AFC East title with win vs. Jacksonville. Lead Bengals based on better strength of victory (Patriots have beaten teams with combined 65-85 record; Bengals have beaten teams that are a combined 60-89).
Sunday: at Houston, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 706)
4. Cincinnati Bengals (10-5) – Clinched AFC North title with win vs. Kansas City.
Sunday: at Jets, 8:20 ET (NBC)
5. New York Jets (8-7) – Currently No. 5 seed based on better conference record than Houston (6-5 to 5-6) and better record in common games (3-1) than Denver (2-2) and Baltimore (0-4).Would clinch No. 5 seed with win. Eliminated with loss to Cincinnati (because Jets then would not beat Denver in common games tie).
Sunday: vs. Cincinnati, 8:20 ET (NBC)
6. Baltimore Ravens (8-7) – Currently No. 6 seed because of better division record than Pittsburgh (3-3 to 2-4), better conference record than Houston (6-5 to 5-6) and head-to-head victory vs. Denver. Would clinch No. 5 seed with win and New York loss. Would clinch No. 6 seed with win and New York win. Eliminated with loss.
Sunday: at Oakland, 4:15 ET (CBS/DirecTV 717)
7. Denver Broncos (8-7) – Currently No. 7 seed due to better conference record than Houston (6-5 to 5-6). Would clinch No. 5 seed with New York loss and Baltimore loss and Houston loss and Pittsburgh loss and Jacksonville loss. Would clinch No. 5 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and either Pittsburgh loss or Houston win. Would clinch No. 6 seed with win and 1) New York loss or Baltimore loss (not both), and 2) Pittsburgh and/or Houston loss. Would clinch No. 6 seed with loss and either 1) New York loss and Baltimore loss and Houston loss and Miami loss and Jacksonville loss, or 2) Pittsburgh loss and losses by three of the following: New York, Baltimore, Houston, Jacksonville. Eliminated with 1) Jets win and Ravens win, or 2) Steelers win and Texans loss and either Jets win or Ravens win. Eliminated with loss and 1) Pittsburgh win and New York win or Baltimore win or Houston win or Jacksonville win, or 2) Miami win and wins by at least two of the following: New York, Baltimore, Houston, Jacksonville.
Sunday: vs. Kansas City, 4:15 ET (CBS/DirecTV 716)
8. Houston Texans (8-7) – Currently 8th in AFC because of better record than Pittsburgh in common games (3-1 to 1-3). Would clinch No. 5 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss. Would clinch No. 6 seed with win and losses by two of the following: New York, Baltimore, Denver. Eliminated with loss or wins by at least two of the following: New York, Baltimore, Denver.
Sunday: vs. New England, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 706)
9. Pittsburgh Steelers (8-7) – Would clinch No. 5 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and Houston loss. Would clinch No. 6 seed with win and either 1) New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss and Houston win, or 2) Houston loss and either New York loss or Baltimore loss. Eliminated with loss or 1) New York and Baltimore wins, or 2) Houston win and New York, Baltimore or Denver win.
Sunday: at Miami, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 707)
10. Miami Dolphins (7-8) – Currently No. 10 seed based on head-to-head win over Jacksonville but would lose multiple-team 8-8 ties with Jacksonville because of worse conference record (7-5 to 6-6). Would be No. 6 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss and Houston loss and Jacksonville loss. Eliminated with loss/tie or New York win/tie or Baltimore win/tie or Denver win/tie or Houston win/tie or Jacksonville win.
Sunday: vs. Pittsburgh, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 707)
11. Jacksonville Jaguars (7-8) – Would win all 8-8 ties because of 7-5 conference record. Would be No. 5 seed with win and New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss and Houston loss and Pittsburgh loss. Would be No. 6 seed with win and 1) New York loss and Baltimore loss and Denver loss and Houston loss and Miami loss, or 2) Pittsburgh loss and loss by exactly one of the following: New York, Baltimore, Denver, Houston. Eliminated with loss or wins by at least two of the following: New York, Baltimore, Denver, Houston.
Sunday: at Cleveland, 1 ET (CBS/DirecTV 705)
NFC PLAYOFF PICTURE
1. New Orleans Saints (13-2) – Clinched top seed with Minnesota loss at Chicago.
Sunday: at Carolina, 1 ET (Fox/DirecTV 709)
2. Philadelphia Eagles (11-4) – Clinched playoff spot but would lose NFC East tiebreaker with Dallas due to head-to-head sweep. Would be No. 2 seed with win or both tie and Minnesota loss/tie. Would be No. 5 seed with loss and Green Bay loss/tie. Would be No. 6 seed with loss and Green Bay win.
Sunday: at Dallas, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 713)
3. Minnesota Vikings (11-4) – Have clinched NFC North title because of head-to-head sweep vs. Green Bay. Would clinch No. 2 seed and first-round playoff bye with win and Philadelphia loss/tie, or tie and Philadelphia loss. Would be No. 3 seed with Philadelphia win plus Minnesota win and/or Arizona loss. Would be No. 4 seed with loss and Arizona win.
Sunday: vs. Giants, 1 ET (Fox/DirecTV 710)
4. Arizona Cardinals (10-5) – Clinched NFC West title. Would be No. 2 seed with win and Philadelphia loss and Minnesota loss. Would be No. 3 seed with win and either Philadelphia loss or Minnesota loss (not both). Would be No. 4 seed with loss/tie or both Philadelphia win/tie and Minnesota win/tie.
Sunday: vs. Green Bay, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 715)
5. Green Bay Packers (10-5) – Clinched playoff berth with win vs. Seattle and Giants loss vs. Carolina. Currently No. 5 seed because of head-to-head win vs. Dallas. Would be No. 5 seed with win or Dallas loss, or tie and Dallas tie. Would be No. 6 seed with loss/tie and Dallas win.
Sunday: at Arizona, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 715)
6. Dallas Cowboys (10-5) – Clinched playoff berth with win at Washington. Would be No. 2 seed with win and Minnesota loss and Arizona loss. Would be No. 3 seed with win and 1) Minnesota win and Arizona loss, or 2) Arizona win and Minnesota loss. Would be No. 4 seed with win and Minnesota win/tie and Arizona win. Would be No. 6 seed with loss (Would be No. 5 seed with tie and Green Bay loss).
Sunday: vs. Philadelphia, 4:15 ET (Fox/DirecTV 713)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sun Cruz Employees out in the cold
According to the bankruptcy filing, the company owes several hundred companies and individuals money, totaling between $50 million and $100 million.
Last week about 20 of the largest creditors formed an ad hoc committee to try to obtain payment.
In addition to outstanding debt, the company also failed to pay for insurance premiums for employee health policies that had been deducted from employee paychecks.
Some employees lost their COBRA rights as a result and are now uninsured, according to a statement released by the committee.
Fortress Investment Group, which was Ocean Casinos lender, took control of the company in November 2008 and there are questions about motivations of the bankruptcy, said Jonathan Stein, an attorney representing the group.
"It's highly, highly unusual in the gaming industry to leave unpaid gambling debts, and that seems to have occurred here," he said.
"There is also a great deal of questions whether a withdrawal of $1.6 million in cage cash, used to pay gambling debts, was lawful or not."
He said the committee is pursuing an investigation into whether there was any illegal activity.
The bankruptcy filing appears to be intended to benefit Fortress at the expense of other creditors, the committee said in the statement.
Attempts to reach Ocean Casinos for comment were unsuccessful.
In recent years changes in Florida gaming rules, which have allowed American Indian tribes to provide land-based gambling, has eaten into the casino boat market, said Eric Rahn, a gaming consultant who has more than 25 years of experience in the maritime gambling industry.
SunCruz, a Florida-based company, likely saw a decline as the result of those changes, but the Myrtle Beach operation was profitable, he said.
"I think there is enough demand in the area, I believe the market has been established," Rahn said.
"Unless South Carolina and North Carolina change their gaming laws there'll continue to be a need to provide this type of adult entertainment."
The general state of the economy also has had an impact on the industry, but he said he expects it will continue to prosper in certain markets, including along the Grand Strand, as long as a healthy business can come in to operate another ship.
"Over the years it's been proven two ships could survive up there," he said.
The remaining casino boat sailing out of Little River, the Big "M," has seen business pick up since SunCruz started sailing, said Jo Mull, the marketing coordinator for the company.
"People came over [but] we do everything so differently they're finding it hard to get used to us," she said.
Chris Sager, who played poker aboard the SunCruz ship several nights a week, said the Big "M" doesn't offer live poker or sports betting, his two main activities aboard SunCruz.
He was upset to find out that SunCruz had shut down when he went to pick up past winnings, he said.
"They owed several people money and they don't say nothing or go out on a cruise one more time," Sager said.
Business had slowed on the SunCruz ship for the last few weeks it was operating, he said.
The Big "M" didn't see a big dip in passengers during that same period and doesn't plan to make any changes in the number of trips, types of gambling it offers or its marketing.
Little River can sustain two casino boats and "there is definitely enough room for two of us," Mull said.
Horry County, which collects a $7 per passenger fee from the casino boats will lose some money with SunCruz gone, but for the time being the uptick in passengers going on the Big "M" may help lighten the blow, said Harold Worley, the Horry County councilman who represents Little River. SunCruz also owes the county more than $100,000 for October fees and an unknown amount for November.
"The bankruptcy filing is obviously going to affect the waterfront but at some point in time I think you are going to have a boat replace that boat," Worley said.
In addition to pressures that the overall economic downturn and fewer tourists have put on the boats, North Carolina is allowing a form of video poker at Internet cafes, he said.
"That's draining off a few customers that would go," Worley said. "Between those two issues it's creating
Last week about 20 of the largest creditors formed an ad hoc committee to try to obtain payment.
In addition to outstanding debt, the company also failed to pay for insurance premiums for employee health policies that had been deducted from employee paychecks.
Some employees lost their COBRA rights as a result and are now uninsured, according to a statement released by the committee.
Fortress Investment Group, which was Ocean Casinos lender, took control of the company in November 2008 and there are questions about motivations of the bankruptcy, said Jonathan Stein, an attorney representing the group.
"It's highly, highly unusual in the gaming industry to leave unpaid gambling debts, and that seems to have occurred here," he said.
"There is also a great deal of questions whether a withdrawal of $1.6 million in cage cash, used to pay gambling debts, was lawful or not."
He said the committee is pursuing an investigation into whether there was any illegal activity.
The bankruptcy filing appears to be intended to benefit Fortress at the expense of other creditors, the committee said in the statement.
Attempts to reach Ocean Casinos for comment were unsuccessful.
In recent years changes in Florida gaming rules, which have allowed American Indian tribes to provide land-based gambling, has eaten into the casino boat market, said Eric Rahn, a gaming consultant who has more than 25 years of experience in the maritime gambling industry.
SunCruz, a Florida-based company, likely saw a decline as the result of those changes, but the Myrtle Beach operation was profitable, he said.
"I think there is enough demand in the area, I believe the market has been established," Rahn said.
"Unless South Carolina and North Carolina change their gaming laws there'll continue to be a need to provide this type of adult entertainment."
The general state of the economy also has had an impact on the industry, but he said he expects it will continue to prosper in certain markets, including along the Grand Strand, as long as a healthy business can come in to operate another ship.
"Over the years it's been proven two ships could survive up there," he said.
The remaining casino boat sailing out of Little River, the Big "M," has seen business pick up since SunCruz started sailing, said Jo Mull, the marketing coordinator for the company.
"People came over [but] we do everything so differently they're finding it hard to get used to us," she said.
Chris Sager, who played poker aboard the SunCruz ship several nights a week, said the Big "M" doesn't offer live poker or sports betting, his two main activities aboard SunCruz.
He was upset to find out that SunCruz had shut down when he went to pick up past winnings, he said.
"They owed several people money and they don't say nothing or go out on a cruise one more time," Sager said.
Business had slowed on the SunCruz ship for the last few weeks it was operating, he said.
The Big "M" didn't see a big dip in passengers during that same period and doesn't plan to make any changes in the number of trips, types of gambling it offers or its marketing.
Little River can sustain two casino boats and "there is definitely enough room for two of us," Mull said.
Horry County, which collects a $7 per passenger fee from the casino boats will lose some money with SunCruz gone, but for the time being the uptick in passengers going on the Big "M" may help lighten the blow, said Harold Worley, the Horry County councilman who represents Little River. SunCruz also owes the county more than $100,000 for October fees and an unknown amount for November.
"The bankruptcy filing is obviously going to affect the waterfront but at some point in time I think you are going to have a boat replace that boat," Worley said.
In addition to pressures that the overall economic downturn and fewer tourists have put on the boats, North Carolina is allowing a form of video poker at Internet cafes, he said.
"That's draining off a few customers that would go," Worley said. "Between those two issues it's creating
Casino called Sun CRuz Filed BK
The parent company of a Grand Strand casino boat has filed for bankruptcy. Oceans Casino Cruises, based in the Miami area, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy Monday.
The company ran the Sun Cruz casino boat that docked in Little River.
Court documents show the company claims more than 200 creditors and over $50 million in liabilities.
Nevada Gold and Casinos, Inc., which had a contract to manage the company, has said it is negotiating to purchase some of the casino boat company's assets.
The boat attracted thousands of gamblers each week to the waterfront at Little River that's lined with bars and restaurants.
While many managers of those businesses say they feel sorry for the boat's employees, it's hard to find too many of them who are heartbroken at the loss of the Sun Cruz.
At Fibber's, a waterfront restaurant that caters mostly to retired folks, owner Rich Dobkin says his business won't suffer at all from the loss of the casino boat.
In fact, he thinks the boat was a detriment to the community.
"They never really did too much positive things for the area. They ate up parking. Parking's our biggest problem down here on the waterfront. They attracted not the type of people I'd like here on the waterfront," Dobkin said.
Dobkin says it'd be fine with him if the one remaining casino boat, The Big M, left the area, too.
He says the casino customers rarely patronize other waterfront businesses and clog the area's few parking spaces.
Down the street at Crab Catchers restaurant, manager Neil Mantor says he feels bad for the casino boat's employees, but says it was "kind of shady" the way the boat suddenly shut down and left.
"There was no rumors about the company struggling or anything like that. That's the longest running one down here, so we just kind of assumed it was stable."
Mantor says the Crab Catchers schedule didn't coincide well with the casino boat's, so the loss of the boat won't mean much to his business, either.
Dobkin says he'd like to see Horry County and Little River try harder to bring more shops and attractions to the waterfront instead of the casino boats.
"I don't think gambling's really helped the waterfront here. I know Horry County has gotten money out of it for the taxpayers but I don't know what Little River benefits by the gambling ship here, except for employment maybe for residents."
Most business people who talked to NewsChannel 15 don't expect the boat to be gone for long. They say they're already hearing rumors the Sun Cruz will get a new owner and could be back as soon as next week.
Sun Cruz owes Horry County more than $100,000 in unpaid passenger fees
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
The company ran the Sun Cruz casino boat that docked in Little River.
Court documents show the company claims more than 200 creditors and over $50 million in liabilities.
Nevada Gold and Casinos, Inc., which had a contract to manage the company, has said it is negotiating to purchase some of the casino boat company's assets.
The boat attracted thousands of gamblers each week to the waterfront at Little River that's lined with bars and restaurants.
While many managers of those businesses say they feel sorry for the boat's employees, it's hard to find too many of them who are heartbroken at the loss of the Sun Cruz.
At Fibber's, a waterfront restaurant that caters mostly to retired folks, owner Rich Dobkin says his business won't suffer at all from the loss of the casino boat.
In fact, he thinks the boat was a detriment to the community.
"They never really did too much positive things for the area. They ate up parking. Parking's our biggest problem down here on the waterfront. They attracted not the type of people I'd like here on the waterfront," Dobkin said.
Dobkin says it'd be fine with him if the one remaining casino boat, The Big M, left the area, too.
He says the casino customers rarely patronize other waterfront businesses and clog the area's few parking spaces.
Down the street at Crab Catchers restaurant, manager Neil Mantor says he feels bad for the casino boat's employees, but says it was "kind of shady" the way the boat suddenly shut down and left.
"There was no rumors about the company struggling or anything like that. That's the longest running one down here, so we just kind of assumed it was stable."
Mantor says the Crab Catchers schedule didn't coincide well with the casino boat's, so the loss of the boat won't mean much to his business, either.
Dobkin says he'd like to see Horry County and Little River try harder to bring more shops and attractions to the waterfront instead of the casino boats.
"I don't think gambling's really helped the waterfront here. I know Horry County has gotten money out of it for the taxpayers but I don't know what Little River benefits by the gambling ship here, except for employment maybe for residents."
Most business people who talked to NewsChannel 15 don't expect the boat to be gone for long. They say they're already hearing rumors the Sun Cruz will get a new owner and could be back as soon as next week.
Sun Cruz owes Horry County more than $100,000 in unpaid passenger fees
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Outlaw Solution for Mayweather VS Pacquiao
Ok Pacquiao and Mayweather you guys both know this is the biggest fight ever. Yet Pacquiao has a problem with the blood test 24 hours before the fight. So why not do the olympic style test 30 days before the fight and after the fight, and do the NFL, MLB, NHL test before the fight and everyone will be happy.
Recent News on this fight:
Pacquiao promoter Bob Arum made what he called his “final proposal,” suggesting that each camp make representations to the Nevada State Athletic Commission as to why their preferred testing system should be used. Both sides would then be expected to accept the commission’s final ruling on a testing format. Arum said that if the Mayweather camp doesn’t agree, he would begin negotiations Monday with Paulie Malignaggi as Pacquiao’s next opponent.
But Mayweather adviser Leonard Ellerbe and Golden Boy Promotions CEO Richard Schaefer indicated to Yahoo! Sports that they would not accept such a proposal, meaning Arum’s deadline of Monday morning would not be met.
Mayweather with adviser Ellerbe.
(Getty Images)
That means Pacquiao-Malignaggi and not Pacquiao-Mayweather will happen on March 13, right?
Not so fast.
In this feud that operates in a parallel boxing universe, where truth, spin and trickery make awkward bedfellows, ultimatum can mean conciliation. Indeed, with the egos and pride involved on all sides, it could take this fight heading to the brink of collapse before it can actually get sorted out.
Everyone knows what is at stake here, from Arum to Schaefer to the fighters themselves. The magnitude of the fight, the biggest and most lucrative of both fighters’ careers, means that negotiations must be made with strength and conviction.
But it is all for nothing if the whole thing goes to shreds, leaving nothing more than a black hole of lost money for both sides.
So Monday, deadline or no, this thing has a ways to run.
“We are prepared to have this handled in a way that is not us deciding or them deciding,” said Arum, speaking while vacationing in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. “The commission meets on Jan. 19. Mayweather’s people can say why they believe additional testing above what we agreed to is necessary and we can give our viewpoint.
“Let the commission decide. If they come away and decide Manny needs to be blood tested every single [expletive] day, then we will go with that. This is the way to go to give this thing legitimacy. I hope they [Team Mayweather] see reason.”
Arum’s concession may help swing public opinion in Pacquiao’s favor. The Filipino star’s arguments that he did not like needles and feared that blood testing within 30 days of the fight would drain him were met with little sympathy.
But it is Mayweather who stands to look unreasonable if he does not accept this proposal. And now we may find out once and for all whether the Pretty Boy’s stance over the drug issue was more mired in deep concern that Pacquiao is a steroid cheat or mere posturing aimed at disrupting his opponent.
Either way, there are no guarantees that the Nevada commission would approve the kind of random testing that Mayweather’s people want, as it would effectively be an admission that its current policies are ineffective and potentially would set an expensive precedent for future fights.
“It does not make sense for this to become a commission matter,” Schaefer told Yahoo! Sports. “This is a contractual matter. The commission did not decide the weights or the purse split or how the foreign television rights would be sold.
“If this is Bob’s final ultimatum, then that’s what it is. That is his decision if he wants to take that position. I very much hope this fight can be made, but the reason it is at a standstill is because of the way they have handled things.”
Ellerbe’s response when told of Arum’s offer was brief and to the point.
“Random is random,” he said. “We are all intelligent people and we know what random testing is. That is what we want and it has not changed.”
This to-and-fro negotiation is boxing’s biggest fight right now, and it has become a bitter feud. There has to be some give and take – and with millions of dollars and countless reputations on the line, it would still be a surprise if Mayweather-Pacquiao doesn’t happen, despite all the bumps in the road.
“This is boxing and it is the boxing business,” HBO commentator Larry Merchant said. “Mayweather calls himself ‘Money,’ so it is hard to see him walking away from this much of it, especially when he thinks he is going to win.
“This would be the biggest fight that has been sabotaged because of a blood feud. No one wants to see it come to that.”
Also this twist to the fight a LAWSUIT?
Negotiations to finalize a lucrative boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. took another bizarre twist Friday as Pacquiao threatened libel lawsuits and the chief executive officer of Golden Boy Promotions was accused of telling a Filipino journalist that Pacquiao is using performance-enhancing drugs.
Pacquiao promoter Bob Arum said Friday that reporter Ronnie Nathanielsz of the Manila Standard told him that in September, Nathanielsz was in the Golden Boy offices in Los Angeles when Richard Schaefer accused Pacquiao of using PEDs.
Schaefer, whose company is representing Mayweather in a fight expected to be the largest-grossing in history, recalls meeting Nathanielsz in his downtown Los Angeles office but denied the allegations.
Popular Yahoo! Sports StoriesNFL player's shoe gaffe turns into big gift NBA star had guns in his locker More From Kevin IoleTop boxing stories of 2009 Dec 28, 2009 Pacquiao-Malignaggi match could stop superfight Dec 24, 2009 ADVERTISEMENT
Manny Pacquiao denies taking steroids.
(Ethan Miller/Getty)
Nathanielsz, whose newspaper has not reported the alleged conversation, declined via email to comment.
Talks to finalize the bout between the two best pound-for-pound fighters in the world hit a snag on Tuesday when Mayweather issued a statement demanding “Olympic-style drug testing” administered by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Top Rank, on behalf of Pacquiao, declined and the sides have exchanged bitter words since.
On Friday, Arum said he spoke on the telephone late Thursday with Winchell Campos, a Pacquiao publicist. Arum said Campos told him Pacquiao planned to file a lawsuit against Mayweather, Mayweather Sr., Golden Boy Promotions and Schaefer for allegations Pacquiao says they made without evidence that he is on performance-enhancing drugs.
Arum said he tried to talk Campos out of issuing a statement from Pacquiao announcing plans for the suit. But Arum said Campos then put Pacquiao on the telephone and that Pacquiao was as angry as he has ever heard him.
“Manny is usually this mild-mannered guy, but he was unbelievably angry,” Arum said. “I never heard him like that. He told me to make it stop. This was a different Manny than I’d ever heard. When I hung up, I said, ‘What the hell was that about?’ ”
When he spoke to Nathanielsz by telephone 30 minutes later, Arum said Nathanielsz recounted a meeting in Schaefer’s downtown Los Angeles office in the buildup to the Sept. 19 fight in Las Vegas between Mayweather Jr. and Juan Manuel Marquez in which he alleged that Schaefer told him Pacquiao was using performance-enhancing drugs.
Arum, who flew to Mexico on Friday for a week-long vacation, said Nathanielsz’s comments clarified things for him. He said he had been puzzled by Mayweather Sr.’s public allegations against Pacquiao, but said they began to make sense after speaking with Nathanielsz.
“Ronnie said he came over early for the [Mayweather-Marquez] fight and he met with Schaefer,” Arum said. “He said they met for a half hour and that Schaefer went on and on and on that Manny is a cheater and that Manny uses steroids and that Manny was on performance-enhancing drugs.
“Ronnie asked him, ‘Why would you take this attitude with this young man?’ Ronnie told me he thinks Schaefer is pissed off that Manny chose us over Golden Boy, though Schaefer is happy to take the money.”
Pacquiao signed promotional contracts with both Golden Boy and Top Rank in 2006. Golden Boy president Oscar De La Hoya met Pacquiao at Los Angeles International Airport and gave him a suitcase filled with $250,000 in cash, which Pacquiao later was forced to return, as an inducement to sign.
Lawsuits were filed and the matter was eventually settled in arbitration by retired judge Daniel Weinstein. Weinstein ruled Pacquiao would be promoted by Top Rank, but that Golden Boy is entitled to a percentage of profits in perpetuity from all Pacquiao fights as long as Top Rank had Pacquiao under contract.
Arum said he has asked his attorneys to have the arbitration reopened and have Golden Boy eliminated since Schaefer’s actions were not in the fighter’s best interests.
Schaefer said Nathanielsz has had a good relationship with Golden Boy, particularly with its matchmaker, Eric Gomez. Schaefer admitted he hosted Nathanielsz in his office, but denied he made any accusations about Pacquiao and performance-enhancing drugs.
“I would never accuse anybody of anything and those who know me know that’s just not the way I am,” Schaefer said Friday. “I would never go and allege anybody is doing anything, so that is absolutely not true that I would have said to anybody that Manny is cheating. I didn’t.
“We have a pretty good relationship with Ronnie. I think Eric does. He came to see our offices, but there was no accusation of cheating. And in this process, over the last few days or weeks, not once did you hear me say, to you or to anyone else, that I am accusing Manny of taking anything or doing anything illegal.”
Schaefer also questioned why, if Nathanielsz had such information, that he had not reported it.
Mayweather Sr. began inferring that he suspected Pacquiao was on steroids or some other performance-enhancing substance in September, not long after Nathanielsz visited the Golden Boy offices.
After Pacquiao’s victory over Miguel Cotto on Nov. 14 in Las Vegas, Mayweather Sr. suggested to Yahoo! Sports reporter Martin Rogers that Pacquiao’s improvements were not natural.
“You know there is something going on with him,” Mayweather Sr. told Rogers. “If I was Floyd I wouldn’t fight him because of that. It just don’t add up. Take a look at them old pictures, man. That’s a different dude. And he got knocked out when he was 30 pounds lighter, but now he can stand there and take Cotto’s best shots? Come on.”
Arum reiterated Friday that Pacquiao is clean and said the fight can be salvaged if Mayweather backs off his insistence that testing be administered by USADA. USADA’s procedures demand random testing up to and including the day of competition.
Pacquiao has an aversion to giving blood close to an event, both Arum and his adviser, Michael Koncz, have said, believing it weakens him. Arum said Pacquiao would submit to testing if it were done under the auspices of the Nevada Athletic Commission.
“They’re corrupted in this thing; they’re complicit,” Arum said of USADA. “Both sides here know the people involved in the Nevada Athletic Commission. It can handle the testing and we can work out a protocol that will prove Manny is not on anything and that won’t interfere with the fight.”
Leonard Ellerbe, the CEO of Mayweather Promotions and the fighter’s closest friend, refused to say Friday whether his side would accept testing done by any group other than USADA, as it has demanded.
Ellerbe said he and Mayweather adviser Al Haymon came up with the idea to require the testing, not Mayweather Jr., as a way to protect their fighter.
“We’re waiting to see if Manny Pacquiao is going to do the Olympic-style drug testing,” Ellerbe said. “The bottom line is that neither Top Rank, nor Manny’s camp, nor Mayweather Promotions or Golden Boy Promotions are going to dictate how the blood and urine testing is conducted.
“I understand this could be the biggest fight in the history of the sport, but all money ain’t good money. You can’t put a price tag on anything when it comes to a man’s livelihood. The fighters are the only ones stepping up, putting their lives on the line. It’s the fighters who are putting their lives on the line, not me, not Top Rank, not Golden Boy, not Al Haymon. Our responsibility here is to protect the interests of our guy and that’s what we’re doing.”
In his statement in which he threatened to sue, Pacquiao denies taking steroids and said he didn’t sue Mayweather Sr. earlier because he didn’t want to create distractions during his preparations for Cotto.
“I maintain and assure everyone that I have not used any form or kind of steroids and that my way to the top is a result of hard work, hard work, hard work and a lot of blood spilled from my past battles in the ring, not outside of it,” Pacquiao said in his statement. “I have no idea what steroids look like and my fear in God has kept me safe and victorious through all these years.
“Now, I say to Floyd Mayweather Jr., don’t be a coward and face me in the ring, mano-a-mano and shut your big, pretty mouth, so we can show the world who is the true king of the ring.”
Arum said he plans to continue parallel negotiations with Lou DiBella, who promotes Paulie Malignaggi, and plans to resume those talks on Monday for a Pacquiao-Malignaggi fight on March 13.
Malignaggi has suggested Pacquiao may have taken performance-enhancing drugs and Arum said Pacquiao would agree to some type of testing administered by a regulatory agency like the Nevada Athletic Commission to quell those fears.
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
www.outlawsportsradio.com
Recent News on this fight:
Pacquiao promoter Bob Arum made what he called his “final proposal,” suggesting that each camp make representations to the Nevada State Athletic Commission as to why their preferred testing system should be used. Both sides would then be expected to accept the commission’s final ruling on a testing format. Arum said that if the Mayweather camp doesn’t agree, he would begin negotiations Monday with Paulie Malignaggi as Pacquiao’s next opponent.
But Mayweather adviser Leonard Ellerbe and Golden Boy Promotions CEO Richard Schaefer indicated to Yahoo! Sports that they would not accept such a proposal, meaning Arum’s deadline of Monday morning would not be met.
Mayweather with adviser Ellerbe.
(Getty Images)
That means Pacquiao-Malignaggi and not Pacquiao-Mayweather will happen on March 13, right?
Not so fast.
In this feud that operates in a parallel boxing universe, where truth, spin and trickery make awkward bedfellows, ultimatum can mean conciliation. Indeed, with the egos and pride involved on all sides, it could take this fight heading to the brink of collapse before it can actually get sorted out.
Everyone knows what is at stake here, from Arum to Schaefer to the fighters themselves. The magnitude of the fight, the biggest and most lucrative of both fighters’ careers, means that negotiations must be made with strength and conviction.
But it is all for nothing if the whole thing goes to shreds, leaving nothing more than a black hole of lost money for both sides.
So Monday, deadline or no, this thing has a ways to run.
“We are prepared to have this handled in a way that is not us deciding or them deciding,” said Arum, speaking while vacationing in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. “The commission meets on Jan. 19. Mayweather’s people can say why they believe additional testing above what we agreed to is necessary and we can give our viewpoint.
“Let the commission decide. If they come away and decide Manny needs to be blood tested every single [expletive] day, then we will go with that. This is the way to go to give this thing legitimacy. I hope they [Team Mayweather] see reason.”
Arum’s concession may help swing public opinion in Pacquiao’s favor. The Filipino star’s arguments that he did not like needles and feared that blood testing within 30 days of the fight would drain him were met with little sympathy.
But it is Mayweather who stands to look unreasonable if he does not accept this proposal. And now we may find out once and for all whether the Pretty Boy’s stance over the drug issue was more mired in deep concern that Pacquiao is a steroid cheat or mere posturing aimed at disrupting his opponent.
Either way, there are no guarantees that the Nevada commission would approve the kind of random testing that Mayweather’s people want, as it would effectively be an admission that its current policies are ineffective and potentially would set an expensive precedent for future fights.
“It does not make sense for this to become a commission matter,” Schaefer told Yahoo! Sports. “This is a contractual matter. The commission did not decide the weights or the purse split or how the foreign television rights would be sold.
“If this is Bob’s final ultimatum, then that’s what it is. That is his decision if he wants to take that position. I very much hope this fight can be made, but the reason it is at a standstill is because of the way they have handled things.”
Ellerbe’s response when told of Arum’s offer was brief and to the point.
“Random is random,” he said. “We are all intelligent people and we know what random testing is. That is what we want and it has not changed.”
This to-and-fro negotiation is boxing’s biggest fight right now, and it has become a bitter feud. There has to be some give and take – and with millions of dollars and countless reputations on the line, it would still be a surprise if Mayweather-Pacquiao doesn’t happen, despite all the bumps in the road.
“This is boxing and it is the boxing business,” HBO commentator Larry Merchant said. “Mayweather calls himself ‘Money,’ so it is hard to see him walking away from this much of it, especially when he thinks he is going to win.
“This would be the biggest fight that has been sabotaged because of a blood feud. No one wants to see it come to that.”
Also this twist to the fight a LAWSUIT?
Negotiations to finalize a lucrative boxing match between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. took another bizarre twist Friday as Pacquiao threatened libel lawsuits and the chief executive officer of Golden Boy Promotions was accused of telling a Filipino journalist that Pacquiao is using performance-enhancing drugs.
Pacquiao promoter Bob Arum said Friday that reporter Ronnie Nathanielsz of the Manila Standard told him that in September, Nathanielsz was in the Golden Boy offices in Los Angeles when Richard Schaefer accused Pacquiao of using PEDs.
Schaefer, whose company is representing Mayweather in a fight expected to be the largest-grossing in history, recalls meeting Nathanielsz in his downtown Los Angeles office but denied the allegations.
Popular Yahoo! Sports StoriesNFL player's shoe gaffe turns into big gift NBA star had guns in his locker More From Kevin IoleTop boxing stories of 2009 Dec 28, 2009 Pacquiao-Malignaggi match could stop superfight Dec 24, 2009 ADVERTISEMENT
Manny Pacquiao denies taking steroids.
(Ethan Miller/Getty)
Nathanielsz, whose newspaper has not reported the alleged conversation, declined via email to comment.
Talks to finalize the bout between the two best pound-for-pound fighters in the world hit a snag on Tuesday when Mayweather issued a statement demanding “Olympic-style drug testing” administered by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Top Rank, on behalf of Pacquiao, declined and the sides have exchanged bitter words since.
On Friday, Arum said he spoke on the telephone late Thursday with Winchell Campos, a Pacquiao publicist. Arum said Campos told him Pacquiao planned to file a lawsuit against Mayweather, Mayweather Sr., Golden Boy Promotions and Schaefer for allegations Pacquiao says they made without evidence that he is on performance-enhancing drugs.
Arum said he tried to talk Campos out of issuing a statement from Pacquiao announcing plans for the suit. But Arum said Campos then put Pacquiao on the telephone and that Pacquiao was as angry as he has ever heard him.
“Manny is usually this mild-mannered guy, but he was unbelievably angry,” Arum said. “I never heard him like that. He told me to make it stop. This was a different Manny than I’d ever heard. When I hung up, I said, ‘What the hell was that about?’ ”
When he spoke to Nathanielsz by telephone 30 minutes later, Arum said Nathanielsz recounted a meeting in Schaefer’s downtown Los Angeles office in the buildup to the Sept. 19 fight in Las Vegas between Mayweather Jr. and Juan Manuel Marquez in which he alleged that Schaefer told him Pacquiao was using performance-enhancing drugs.
Arum, who flew to Mexico on Friday for a week-long vacation, said Nathanielsz’s comments clarified things for him. He said he had been puzzled by Mayweather Sr.’s public allegations against Pacquiao, but said they began to make sense after speaking with Nathanielsz.
“Ronnie said he came over early for the [Mayweather-Marquez] fight and he met with Schaefer,” Arum said. “He said they met for a half hour and that Schaefer went on and on and on that Manny is a cheater and that Manny uses steroids and that Manny was on performance-enhancing drugs.
“Ronnie asked him, ‘Why would you take this attitude with this young man?’ Ronnie told me he thinks Schaefer is pissed off that Manny chose us over Golden Boy, though Schaefer is happy to take the money.”
Pacquiao signed promotional contracts with both Golden Boy and Top Rank in 2006. Golden Boy president Oscar De La Hoya met Pacquiao at Los Angeles International Airport and gave him a suitcase filled with $250,000 in cash, which Pacquiao later was forced to return, as an inducement to sign.
Lawsuits were filed and the matter was eventually settled in arbitration by retired judge Daniel Weinstein. Weinstein ruled Pacquiao would be promoted by Top Rank, but that Golden Boy is entitled to a percentage of profits in perpetuity from all Pacquiao fights as long as Top Rank had Pacquiao under contract.
Arum said he has asked his attorneys to have the arbitration reopened and have Golden Boy eliminated since Schaefer’s actions were not in the fighter’s best interests.
Schaefer said Nathanielsz has had a good relationship with Golden Boy, particularly with its matchmaker, Eric Gomez. Schaefer admitted he hosted Nathanielsz in his office, but denied he made any accusations about Pacquiao and performance-enhancing drugs.
“I would never accuse anybody of anything and those who know me know that’s just not the way I am,” Schaefer said Friday. “I would never go and allege anybody is doing anything, so that is absolutely not true that I would have said to anybody that Manny is cheating. I didn’t.
“We have a pretty good relationship with Ronnie. I think Eric does. He came to see our offices, but there was no accusation of cheating. And in this process, over the last few days or weeks, not once did you hear me say, to you or to anyone else, that I am accusing Manny of taking anything or doing anything illegal.”
Schaefer also questioned why, if Nathanielsz had such information, that he had not reported it.
Mayweather Sr. began inferring that he suspected Pacquiao was on steroids or some other performance-enhancing substance in September, not long after Nathanielsz visited the Golden Boy offices.
After Pacquiao’s victory over Miguel Cotto on Nov. 14 in Las Vegas, Mayweather Sr. suggested to Yahoo! Sports reporter Martin Rogers that Pacquiao’s improvements were not natural.
“You know there is something going on with him,” Mayweather Sr. told Rogers. “If I was Floyd I wouldn’t fight him because of that. It just don’t add up. Take a look at them old pictures, man. That’s a different dude. And he got knocked out when he was 30 pounds lighter, but now he can stand there and take Cotto’s best shots? Come on.”
Arum reiterated Friday that Pacquiao is clean and said the fight can be salvaged if Mayweather backs off his insistence that testing be administered by USADA. USADA’s procedures demand random testing up to and including the day of competition.
Pacquiao has an aversion to giving blood close to an event, both Arum and his adviser, Michael Koncz, have said, believing it weakens him. Arum said Pacquiao would submit to testing if it were done under the auspices of the Nevada Athletic Commission.
“They’re corrupted in this thing; they’re complicit,” Arum said of USADA. “Both sides here know the people involved in the Nevada Athletic Commission. It can handle the testing and we can work out a protocol that will prove Manny is not on anything and that won’t interfere with the fight.”
Leonard Ellerbe, the CEO of Mayweather Promotions and the fighter’s closest friend, refused to say Friday whether his side would accept testing done by any group other than USADA, as it has demanded.
Ellerbe said he and Mayweather adviser Al Haymon came up with the idea to require the testing, not Mayweather Jr., as a way to protect their fighter.
“We’re waiting to see if Manny Pacquiao is going to do the Olympic-style drug testing,” Ellerbe said. “The bottom line is that neither Top Rank, nor Manny’s camp, nor Mayweather Promotions or Golden Boy Promotions are going to dictate how the blood and urine testing is conducted.
“I understand this could be the biggest fight in the history of the sport, but all money ain’t good money. You can’t put a price tag on anything when it comes to a man’s livelihood. The fighters are the only ones stepping up, putting their lives on the line. It’s the fighters who are putting their lives on the line, not me, not Top Rank, not Golden Boy, not Al Haymon. Our responsibility here is to protect the interests of our guy and that’s what we’re doing.”
In his statement in which he threatened to sue, Pacquiao denies taking steroids and said he didn’t sue Mayweather Sr. earlier because he didn’t want to create distractions during his preparations for Cotto.
“I maintain and assure everyone that I have not used any form or kind of steroids and that my way to the top is a result of hard work, hard work, hard work and a lot of blood spilled from my past battles in the ring, not outside of it,” Pacquiao said in his statement. “I have no idea what steroids look like and my fear in God has kept me safe and victorious through all these years.
“Now, I say to Floyd Mayweather Jr., don’t be a coward and face me in the ring, mano-a-mano and shut your big, pretty mouth, so we can show the world who is the true king of the ring.”
Arum said he plans to continue parallel negotiations with Lou DiBella, who promotes Paulie Malignaggi, and plans to resume those talks on Monday for a Pacquiao-Malignaggi fight on March 13.
Malignaggi has suggested Pacquiao may have taken performance-enhancing drugs and Arum said Pacquiao would agree to some type of testing administered by a regulatory agency like the Nevada Athletic Commission to quell those fears.
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
www.outlawsportsradio.com
Week 17 the whos in and who is out of the NFL Playoffs?
The NFL Playoffs are all but set in the NFC.
Week 16 decided the fate of many teams in the NFC.
Currently the teams who are in the playoffs are:
Eagles, Cowboys, Vikings, Packers, Saints, Cardinals
The AFC Playoffs still make the final week of regular season football fun to watch.
Currently the teams who are in the playoffs are:
Patriots, Bengals, Colts, Chargers
With the final week a lot of teams still have a shot including the following teams:
Jets, Ravens, Steelers, Texans, Broncos who all have a win/loss record of 8-6.
For the Jaguars, Dolphins and Titans who all have a win/loss record of 7-8 hope is almost gone.
The only possible way they could make it would be if all five teams above lost and they won the last game, and even than it comes down to a lot of other factors.
I think these games for week 17 will be the best games to keep your eyes glued on:
Bengals VS Jets
Reason: Jets need to win to get in the Play offs.
Patriots VS Texans
Reason: Most likely Patriots will not play the starters but the Texans need a win.
Steelers VS Dolphins
Reason: Steelers need a win and the Dolphins have a slim chance still at the play offs.
Ravens VS Raiders
Reason: Ravens need this one and the Raiders would love to spoil the playoff hopes of the Ravens.
Chiefs VS Broncos
Reason: Broncos need a win to make play offs.
Eagles VS Dallas
Reason: Both are in the play offs but this game determines who will be at home and who will be on the road. Also last time they played the Eagles made the Cowboys look really bad so it is a revenge game for the Cowboys.
Titans VS Seahawks
Reason: Though it is a very slim chance the Titans will bring it all in hopes of a play off shot.
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
www.outlawsportsradio.com
Week 16 decided the fate of many teams in the NFC.
Currently the teams who are in the playoffs are:
Eagles, Cowboys, Vikings, Packers, Saints, Cardinals
The AFC Playoffs still make the final week of regular season football fun to watch.
Currently the teams who are in the playoffs are:
Patriots, Bengals, Colts, Chargers
With the final week a lot of teams still have a shot including the following teams:
Jets, Ravens, Steelers, Texans, Broncos who all have a win/loss record of 8-6.
For the Jaguars, Dolphins and Titans who all have a win/loss record of 7-8 hope is almost gone.
The only possible way they could make it would be if all five teams above lost and they won the last game, and even than it comes down to a lot of other factors.
I think these games for week 17 will be the best games to keep your eyes glued on:
Bengals VS Jets
Reason: Jets need to win to get in the Play offs.
Patriots VS Texans
Reason: Most likely Patriots will not play the starters but the Texans need a win.
Steelers VS Dolphins
Reason: Steelers need a win and the Dolphins have a slim chance still at the play offs.
Ravens VS Raiders
Reason: Ravens need this one and the Raiders would love to spoil the playoff hopes of the Ravens.
Chiefs VS Broncos
Reason: Broncos need a win to make play offs.
Eagles VS Dallas
Reason: Both are in the play offs but this game determines who will be at home and who will be on the road. Also last time they played the Eagles made the Cowboys look really bad so it is a revenge game for the Cowboys.
Titans VS Seahawks
Reason: Though it is a very slim chance the Titans will bring it all in hopes of a play off shot.
The Outlaw Micheal Tomsik
www.outlawsportsradio.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
