As High School football begins to wind down, teams will begin looking forward to the 2015 RMFL season. A critical topic of conversation at this point in the year is always what teams are back, what teams aren't, and what new teams are looking to apply. So, I thought I'd share what I know, and anyone can feel free to add their two cents...
Teams not coming back: Billings Bullets. That's the only one I know of for sure. I have heard rumors of other teams possibly folding, but nothing certain yet. I know if the Montana Blaze are back, they will be under new leadership.
New Teams: We've again had interest from a few teams within our footprint. I've sent out applications to 2 or 3 teams from Utah, a couple from Idaho, and one from Montana. My guess is we'll have 2 or 3 teams that apply for the 2015 season. We've also had a few teams request applications from outside our footprint (Colorado, Las Vegas, Washington), but I'd be surprised if any of them actually apply.
Teams Changing Ownership: The Anarchy have changed ownership and will likely play out of Blackfoot, ID. The Mustangs have brought a new/old GM in Jared Neumier (yes, THAT Jared Neumier). The REV have also changed ownership and will be run by a board led by Ryan Lang.
The deadline for new team applications for 2015 will be December 1st, 2014; so, we should know more then. I am fairly confident that the league structure will stay VERY similar to last year. Depending on what happens in Montana (with the Bullets folding and the Blaze in flux), we may have to re-align the Divisions slightly, and I know we will have some lengthy discussions on playoff-rankings and whether or not we want to keep the Tier 2 playoffs.
I will also be presenting the idea of a neutral-site Championship game venue and maybe All Star game. We talked about this briefly last year, but this year I will have concrete numbers and a plan of how it could work.
Our other main goal for the 2015 League meeting is to review the League Constitution and our bylaws, and reach a consensus from the Managing Board on the rules that we want in place going forward. We have been frustrated the last two years at some teams' inability to follow the rules and bylaws. If there are some rules the Managing Board believes are unneccessary, let's remove them; but if the rules are in the Constitution and bylaws, then let's follow them.
I'm sure plenty will change between now and January 23rd, but that's what I know to this point. We're looking forward to a fantastic 2015!
I forgot to mention, among teams changing ownership, that the Dixie Rebels are now owned by Coach Dale Stott and he will be changing the name to the Zion Lionz.
Not if you're taking over an existing team. The existing team needs to let us know in writing that they are selling/turning over the team to new ownership. We STRONGLY suggest a written contract between the two owners, but we don't approve anything.
We brought up the idea at the league meeting last year that the Managing Board should have to approve a team's change of ownership, but it was voted down. After some of our experiences last year (one of which you were part of), we will likely bring it up again this year; we feel the Managing Board should at least have the power to approve a change of ownership. But as of right now, the existing team just has to let us know, there is no vote or approval process.
-- Edited by Bradthurber on Monday 10th of November 2014 09:46:09 AM
Does a rule change like the Managing Board voting on ownership change HAVE to wait for the League meeting? If there have been recent instances where this was an issue, wouldn't it make the most sense to re-visit it and possibly weed out someone unworthily (sorry, couldn't think of a better word) backdooring into the league as an owner?
My questions aren't a reflection on any of the teams already mentioned in this thread and I'm sure that they would all stand up to the vote but I know a turd slipped by in the past... why leave the league open to it happening again?
__________________
Darrell Baranowski
Utah Shock #51
Player... just a player. Hallelujah, I'M ONLY A PLAYER!!
The only issue is if there is money exchanged. FOR EXAMPLE, if I wanted to sell the Utah Cobras and someone was willing to pay me for the team and the league voted down the sale of the team. That means the team would just dissolve and I would leave with no money to possibly reciprocate what I have put into the team. I would not want to be the person to step in and mess up a person's "PAPER".
I think this should ONLY apply if you have people that have had issues with the league or teams in the past. I think that we should allow the sale of the team but we do NOT guarantee acceptance into the league. I think they should have to "present" at the league meeting....NO MATTER WHAT! This will make shady people that have hurt the league in the past think about getting involved again knowing they will have to face the board members and answer questions. That will also allow us to question them and make sure they have their ducks in a row AND make sure they have a better plan. Maybe we can create some stipulations for them, (for example, they have to have a treasurer that handles the money or put their ledger for the whole team to be able to access).
Not only that...how do we know that just because a person hasn't been shady in the past that they are capable of running a team? What if they have the best intentions but don't really know what they are getting into. We are using the status of a GM that is LEAVING and possibly getting paid to LEAVE to determine that the new guy will just be capable? I don't know if that's the best decision for the league. Thank GOD for Lang and what he did with the REV as well as the man that took over for the Lancers. That could have been a disaster.
I agree with Jaye on this. If this was in place then the fiasco with the Lancers would have been completely different last year. I am thankful that our organization was able to pull out of the mess and finish the season but if it was brought before the league before any of it happened then we could have avoided the mess. Mind you there probably wouldn't have been a Lancers team in 2014 and it would have saved me and my managing team a lot of stress and $$.
-- Edited by UPY77 on Thursday 20th of November 2014 10:41:03 PM
Sell teams? Selling teams has no significant relevance if we allow teams to join every year.
If it's easy to get into the league. your team has no value in it. If you can find someone dumb enough to actually buy a semi-pro team, then you deserve some sort of an award.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but once you own the team and become a part of the RMFL family, you commit to protect the SHIELD of the RMFL. Once you decide you want out or that you want to sell, you're no longer trying to PROTECT the shield. You're trying to make your money and run.
All NEW owners, regardless if you they bought the team or not, should be voted upon. PERIOD. NEW OWNERSHIP, NEW TEAM.
All of a sudden everyone wants to protect their "assets".
Tim Taylor, I said bad idea, you voted me down.
When Tom Bennett stepped down, I said red flag, you guys voted me down.
When I said Frank Padilla was going to run the REV into the ground, you guys voted me down.
THE SAME GUYS WHO VOTED ME DOWN NOW WANT TO SAY THE SAME STUFF IVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY FOR YEARS!
Remember when I asked if Billings would last more than one year if we voted Laurel in? Welp.
New Owner = New Team.
I've been doing this for over a decade now. There's only a few who've been around as long or longer than me.
I'm sick of everyone trying to protect themselves. I'm trying to protect the league.
NEW OWNER = NEW TEAM.
Also, when I'm done with the Shock, it won't be up for sale. Whoever wants it, can have it. But you better damn well be prepared to present the NEW shock.
We are on the same page. What I meant by "sell the team" was when leaving the league, teams will have jerseys, extra helmets and things like that to relinquish to someone that would be willing to carry on the team name. We all know that the ONLY asset in this league are the uniforms/jerseys that we play in. I can't see what else would be worth money unless you just didn't want to have to actually present yourself at the meeting.....imagine that!
I also had phone conversations with Brad and Jess in regards to some of the NEW owners last year. I was also told that there was nothing we could do. Had either of those dudes had to present at the league meeting, I would have ripped them apart because I actually LIVED the backlash from both of them.
I wasn't sure how we could allow them back into the league knowing their history. I don't think this ever came to a VOTE or did I miss something? BUT I agree.....EVERY team should have to present and show that they have a plan in place to protect "THE SHIELD" of the RMFL. We don't just need more teams.....we need more QUALITY teams.
Hi I am the owner of the Vegas Trojans and if we get accepted we will be joining the RMFL and plan on making it home . We have been around 8 years and pride our selves on having a good program. We came to St George this year and played the Dixie Rebels and they made us feel at home.
Agreed. We can't stop who buys or takes over a team. However, if everyone knows they have to present at the meeting it will eliminate the backdoor policy we had last year. I was stating that we cannot regulate who buys a team. If Tim Taylor wants to buy a team.....let him. However, he would have to face the music and be voted into the league again. Lastbyear we were against telling people who they could sell a team to because we didn't want to affect their money or whatever and so they just instantly got into the league bypassing any vote.
I can't speak for the REV but in regards to the lancers, all of our stuff happened post league meeting. We are extremely blessed that we were able to compete the entire season which brings up the positive fact that we were able to still be a team in the league. At the same time we were extremely lucky that we caught what was going on and communicated with the league staff. I'll be more than glad to present what happened to everyone at the league meeting along with ideas to prevent this from happening in the future. Remember that the lancer situation happened about 1 1/2 months to kickoff and the possibility of leaving AA with 7 teams. It could have been really bad and I want to do everything I can to prevent it from happening.
Jaye, we proposed last year that any new owners buying an existing RMFL team would have to receive a majority vote to accept them as the new owners of an existing RMFL franchise, but the vote didn't pass.
I would be completely fine with new owners having to present for league acceptance, I think that's a great idea and not much different than what we were proposing last year.
Derek, no one is questioning the Lancer's new ownership (just the interim ownership between Tom & yourself).
We are in the process of re-certification for existing teams and finalizing the applications for new teams.
Bobby, if you're serious about applying for 2015, you need to get a hold of Doug or I ASAP--today is the deadline to apply.
Thanks Brad, I know the ownership that happened between myself and Tom was the issue and I really don't want any other team have to experience what we went through. That's why I think the timing of the change that happened with us needs to be brought up if "purchasing" a team is brought to a vote. It can happen at any time and not just before the league meeting, as in what happened with us.
We have in writing, Frank Padilla letting ownership go of the Rev and transferring it to us as a board. Will that suffice? Should the Rev be prepared to have to present at the league meeting? Please advise.
Say someone wanted to own a team in Jerome, ID. Two ways of doing so: You can try to apply for new team ownership. Or you could buy the team that is there now. Applying for a new team is risky because it may be turned down, and since there is already a team there, getting a full squad and coaches and sponsors would be difficult because its a small market. So your best bet would be to purchase the team from the original owner. So to counter Kytos statement that there is no value in an owners team, i believe there is more value than jerseys and helmets and brand. Perhaps more value in small markets, because as Kyto said, it is easy to get a new team in SLC or Boise. But probably impossible in say Arco, Uintah, Burley, Jerome etc.
And no owner in this league does it for the money because of course there is no money in it. They do it for the love of the game, for the challenge, and for the brotherhood that comes along with it, all hard things to replace. But after years of putting time and money into "protecting the shield," finding somene to buy the team, you have put countless hours of time and money into, who is to say that it would be wrong of you to try and get some of the money back. I don't care if sell your team. I don't see how making money off your team would tarnish "the shield" or league rep. In fact, i think it adds more value to the league. Teams that are worth money make the league itself worth money. Only of course it wasn't so easy to add a team into the league as Kyto has said. But that brings us to the arguement, are we a glorified rec league or are we a business? Glorified rec league, then we keep the rules for applying the same. But if we are a business then we must start thinking like a business and only add teams that will be of value and cutting ties with teams that are not of value. Its nearly impossible to make money from a team through gate revenue and concessions after paying the bills, so that doesn't really make us a business. But then again I've never seen a rec league as large as this one and I've never seen one that requires as much time and money put into it. So the arguement remains.
