Just a crazy idea

[Clickclack]

I don't know, I can't believe there are people suggesting that this game could be canceled if UA doesn't get a more equatable agreement. I might be a new fan to D1 basketball but it would be a crime to not play this game. Both Siena and UA administration understands this. I've never been a part of a game like the one on Saturday. Thirty years from now I'll remember that game, improve the deal and let's go, under no circumstances should it be canceled. That kind of talk is totally foolish!

[MTS]

I don't know, I can't believe there are people suggesting that this game could be canceled if UA doesn't get a more equatable agreement.  I might be a new fan to D1 basketball but it would be a crime to not play this game.  Both Siena and UA administration understands this.  I've never been a part of a game like the one on Saturday.  Thirty years from now I'll remember that game, improve the deal and let's go, under no circumstances should it be canceled.  That kind of talk is totally foolish!

18235[/snapback]

 

I totally agree. This game between Siena and Albany must be played once every year. Not twice, but once. And at the Pepsi. I would agree Siena should split the money up and ticket allotment up more evenly - Albany's earned it.

 

But the game has to stay at the Pepsi. If they want Siena to wear their Green road uniforms every other year and the UA PA guy do the introductions fine.

 

As a Siena season ticket holder, I wouldn't mind sitting some place else. I'd get an extra home game as the game wouldn't count towards Siena's 14 home games.

 

Anyways Saturday was fun and last year was too - good luck in the AEast - you guys are the favorites for sure. It would be wild for both to make the NCAAs the same year, Siena has to get through Marist and the MAAC though.

[quackman]

 

Sorry, Dane, I have to disagree with you on this point.

 

There's a basic long-term injustice here between the two teams.

 

Bitterness occurs when people fester on an issue for a long time and do nothing to resolve it.

 

In this situation, I plan to take action on my complaint and carry it to the people in authority. I can do no more on this issue. Whatever those in authority with our input is up to them. If I continue to complain after the new negotiations are done, then you can call me bitter. In the meantime, I will continue to do what little I can to remedy the situation, and the time to push this matter is NOW.

18221[/snapback]

 

I usually try and stay out of this debate, but what is the injustice?

 

Siena and UAlbany negotiated a contract to play a series of basketball games. Both parties went into the negotiations knowing what they wanted to achieve and signed the contract(s) of their own free will. It's a basic business arrangement where both sides were compensated by the terms of the contract. Sorry, but Siena does not owe Albany anything, but then again nor does Albany owe Siena.

 

Remember, when the first contract was negotiated, UAlbany was fighting to get attention in a market dominated by Siena ... so UAlbany was willing to take less money in order to make the game happen. Siena was willing to play UAlbany because of the potential payoff at the box office. (Because it really was a no win game on the court, UAlb wasn in the 300's at the time.)

 

While I agree that the programs are on somewhat equal footing at this time, history and conference affiliation still favors the Saints. (Sorry, outside of a nice run by Vermont, the MAAC is a better league than the AE especially since Hofstra, Delaware, Drexel and Northeastern bolted.)

 

My guess is that the contract will be extended with more favorable terms for the Danes but I wouldn't expect drastically different terms.

 

Lastly, I agree with Dane 96 about the seats ... I often sit on the corners to get away from the crowd, even when I have good seats. There are few bad seats in the bowl.

[bob87]

Alum73 - I agree with you that our athletic program is in good hands and I am sure the next contract will be better and I already pointed out what I think siena would have to lose by canceling that game. On the other hand I don't see a problem with making our voices known.

It is like during the summer when Siena was trying to include this game under that failed tournament. In that case, I also made my opinion known that I didn't think it is good for us to be playing second fiddle to a school like them. Play them as equals fine. Play them always away or as a second billing on their tournament that takes away from this game, absolutely not.

I was not surprised when word came out we were not interested in that tournament or moving already scheduled games since we a re in good hands. Nor was I surprised that Siena was unable to achieve their tournament since I really don't have a high opinion of their administration. Remember this is the same school that banned all beverages including water bottles and coffee cups last year for a couple of days due to a problem with alcohol until it made the papers and they looked foolish.

[bob87]

Quackman, to me it is similar to contract situation in MLB. A player gets on thing when they are an unproven rookie and a different think when on the free market.

We have proven we are on the same level of Siena and I am not buying this history nonsense. We are not talking a league like the Big east. We are talking AE and the maac. The maac has been better some years and the AE better some years in spite of the fact we have 3 new D1 teams in our league.

[olddog71]

I usually try and stay out of this debate, but what is the injustice?

 

Siena and UAlbany negotiated a contract to play a series of basketball games.  Both parties went into the negotiations knowing what they wanted to achieve and signed the contract(s) of their own free will.  It's a basic business arrangement where both sides were compensated by the terms of the contract.  Sorry, but Siena does not owe Albany anything, but then again nor does Albany owe Siena. 

 

Remember, when the first contract was negotiated, UAlbany was fighting to get attention in a market dominated by Siena ... so UAlbany was willing to take less money in order to make the game happen.  Siena was willing to play UAlbany because of the potential payoff at the box office.  (Because it really was a no win game on the court, UAlb wasn in the 300's at the time.)

 

While I agree that the programs are on somewhat equal footing at this time, history and conference affiliation still favors the Saints. (Sorry, outside of a nice run by Vermont, the MAAC is a better league than the AE especially since Hofstra, Delaware, Drexel and Northeastern bolted.)

 

My guess is that the contract will be extended with more favorable terms for the Danes but I wouldn't expect drastically different terms. 

 

Lastly, I agree with Dane 96 about the seats ... I often sit on the corners to get away from the crowd, even when I have good seats.  There are few bad seats in the bowl.

18237[/snapback]

 

MTS,

 

Thanks for understanding my point of view and for your willingness to compromise on your situation in the future.

 

quackman,

 

Please do not try to put words in my mouth. I have NEVER said that the current contract should be canceled or changed while it is in force. Please look back at all the posts I have made on this topic which go back at least two years. All my posts on this topic have referred to changes I would like to see in FUTURE contracts. I firmly believe that a contract is a contract, and both parties should agree to all the terms under it, unless both parties agree to a modification.

 

Yes, both teams are much more even now, but that situation is really irrelevant. You have a home-and-away series this year with NJIT. Now that UAlbany is better, why don't we receive the same terms as that D I newbie?

 

I think it wouldn't hurt Siena once every 730 days to be the away team in our series. To say that we ALWAYS have to be the away team with all its disadvantages is disingenuous at the very least. To infer that in the current situation that it doesn't make any difference where one sits during the game and then go on to state that you don't want to make many modifications in a future contract is illogical.

 

Just because a contract exists doesn't necessarily make it a just agreement. Several decades ago Jim Crow laws were legally binding in many areas of the country. Are you going to tell me that there was no injustice in that setup? As I stated yesterday, from next year onward I don't want to be condemned to sit in the back of the arena for every UAlbany-Siena game. How can you possibly argue with that?

[Dane96]

I usually try and stay out of this debate, but what is the injustice?

 

Siena and UAlbany negotiated a contract to play a series of basketball games.  Both parties went into the negotiations knowing what they wanted to achieve and signed the contract(s) of their own free will.  It's a basic business arrangement where both sides were compensated by the terms of the contract.  Sorry, but Siena does not owe Albany anything, but then again nor does Albany owe Siena. 

 

Remember, when the first contract was negotiated, UAlbany was fighting to get attention in a market dominated by Siena ... so UAlbany was willing to take less money in order to make the game happen.   Siena was willing to play UAlbany because of the potential payoff at the box office.  (Because it really was a no win game on the court, UAlb wasn in the 300's at the time.)

 

While I agree that the programs are on somewhat equal footing at this time, history and conference affiliation still favors the Saints. (Sorry, outside of a nice run by Vermont, the MAAC is a better league than the AE especially since Hofstra, Delaware, Drexel and Northeastern bolted.)

 

My guess is that the contract will be extended with more favorable terms for the Danes but I wouldn't expect drastically different terms. 

 

Lastly, I agree with Dane 96 about the seats ... I often sit on the corners to get away from the crowd, even when I have good seats.  There are few bad seats in the bowl.

18237[/snapback]

 

MTS,

 

Thanks for understanding my point of view and for your willingness to compromise on your situation in the future.

 

quackman,

 

Please do not try to put words in my mouth. I have NEVER said that the current contract should be canceled or changed while it is in force. Please look back at all the posts I have made on this topic which go back at least two years. All my posts on this topic have referred to changes I would like to see in FUTURE contracts. I firmly believe that a contract is a contract, and both parties should agree to all the terms under it, unless both parties agree to a modification.

 

Yes, both teams are much more even now, but that situation is really irrelevant. You have a home-and-away series this year with NJIT. Now that UAlbany is better, why don't we receive the same terms as that D I newbie?

 

I think it wouldn't hurt Siena once every 730 days to be the away team in our series. To say that we ALWAYS have to be the away team with all its disadvantages is disingenuous at the very least. To infer that in the current situation that it doesn't make any difference where one sits during the game and then go on to state that you don't want to make many modifications in a future contract is illogical.

 

Just because a contract exists doesn't necessarily make it a just agreement. Several decades ago Jim Crow laws were legally binding in many areas of the country. Are you going to tell me that there was no injustice in that setup? As I stated yesterday, from next year onward I don't want to be condemned to sit in the back of the arena for every UAlbany-Siena game. How can you possibly argue with that?

18240[/snapback]

 

Olddog...

 

The way you put that...I would agree with you.

[quackman]

quackman,

 

Please do not try to put words in my mouth. I have NEVER said that the current contract should be canceled or changed while it is in force. Please look back at all the posts I have made on this topic which go back at least two years. All my posts on this topic have referred to changes I would like to see in FUTURE contracts. I firmly believe that a contract is a contract, and both parties should agree to all the terms under it, unless both parties agree to a modification.

 

Yes, both teams are much more even now, but that situation is really irrelevant. You have a home-and-away series this year with NJIT. Now that UAlbany is better, why don't we receive the same terms as that D I newbie?

 

I think it wouldn't hurt Siena once every 730 days to be the away team in our series. To say that we ALWAYS have to be the away team with all its disadvantages is disingenuous at the very least. To infer that in the current situation that it doesn't make any difference where one sits during the game and then go on to state that you don't want to make many modifications in a future contract is illogical.

 

Just because a contract exists doesn't necessarily make it a just agreement. Several decades ago Jim Crow laws were legally binding in many areas of the country. Are you going to tell me that there was no injustice in that setup? As I stated yesterday, from next year onward I don't want to be condemned to sit in the back of the arena for every UAlbany-Siena game. How can you possibly argue with that?

18240[/snapback]

 

Olddog...

 

The way you put that...I would agree with you.

18242[/snapback]

 

gonna leave the Jim Crow Laws comparison aside ...

 

You are missing one thing ... neither team is in this to help the other out, it is a business arrangement. I think the NJIT contact was a mistake, but it was done not to help out NJIT but to provide Siena, a team expected to struggle greatly last year, with a couple of confidence building wins this year. I would be shocked if you see that kind of home and home arrangement on the Saints schedule in the future.

 

Siena/UAlbany owe each other nothing, if a financially acceptable arrangement can be made then the contract will continue. But, if not, then I expect it will not be continued. My guess is that both sides will play this out in the media for the next year. Personally, imo, UAlb got what it wanted out of the current deal. They made pretty decent money without having to incur any travel expenses, got a chance to prove themselves against the more established local rival (which they did) and increased the media/local awareness of the program. If, as some of you believe, Siena and Albany are in competition for local attention and $$$, then one might argue that Siena made a mistake scheduling UAlbany as this yearly game has done a lot to raise the Dane's local profile. (as has, certainly, going to the NCAA's last year)

 

I have no problem with both sides making the agreement more equitable but think it folly to believe that this will be a perfect 50/50 compromise. Illogical is thinking that either Siena or Albany owe the other when entering into a business arrangement. Their both going to try and get a deal as advantageous to them as possible. If you want an example of an unfair (and stupid) deal would be UAlbany's arrangement with Syracuse several years back.

[olddog71]

gonna leave the Jim Crow Laws comparison aside ...

 

You are missing one thing ... neither team is in this to help the other out, it is a business arrangement.  I think the NJIT contact was a mistake, but it was done not to help out NJIT but to provide Siena, a team expected to struggle greatly last year, with a couple of confidence building wins this year.  I would be shocked if you see that kind of home and home arrangement on the Saints schedule in the future. 

 

Siena/UAlbany owe each other nothing, if a financially acceptable arrangement can be made then the contract will continue.  But, if not, then I expect it will not be continued.  My guess is that both sides will play this out in the media for the next year.  Personally, imo, UAlb got what it wanted out of the current deal.  They made pretty decent money without having to incur any travel expenses, got a chance to prove themselves against the more established local rival (which they did) and increased the media/local awareness of the program.  If, as some of you believe, Siena and Albany are in competition for local attention and $$$, then one might argue that Siena made a mistake scheduling UAlbany as this yearly game has done a lot to raise the Dane's local profile. (as has, certainly, going to the NCAA's last year)

 

I have no problem with both sides making the agreement more equitable but think it folly to believe that this will be a perfect 50/50 compromise.  Illogical is thinking that either Siena or Albany owe the other when entering into a business arrangement.  Their both going to try and get a deal as advantageous to them as possible.  If you want an example of an unfair (and stupid) deal would be UAlbany's arrangement with Syracuse several years back.

18250[/snapback]

 

1) I'm sorry you did not address the Jim Crow analogy.

 

2) Who said anything about "owing anything" to the other team? Siena, by the way, was forced to schedule UAlbany six years ago. UAlbany had already been initiated into the ranks of Division I two years prior to the first modern series. Your AD had a tremendous pressure to put us on your schedule. Whether the first game occurred in 2001 or 2003, if you had not scheduled us, Siena would have looked very foolish in the whole Capital District. The public wanted this game, and it was really taken out of the hands of the school officials.

 

3) Your treatment of NJIT this year compared to the contract terms you gave UAlbany show Siena's double standard. You claim that the contract terms depend on the relative strength of your opponent. Well, we're legit now, and NJIT isn't.

 

4) Your comparison with Syracuse misses the mark. My major point in negotiating a new contract with Siena is to see UAlbany as the home game every once in a while. During our 5-year contract with Syracuse, we played that role once. In six straight years with Siena, that hasn't happened. It needs to change, and it needs to occur next year.

 

5) Your arguments fall completely flat, in my estimation. It makes me believe even more fervently than ever that an equal contract is the only equitable contract. Siena does not bring any more to the table today than UAlbany does . The days of Siena's certain superiority have passed, and UAlbany's potential can only increase faster than yours.

[quackman]

1) I'm sorry you did not address the Jim Crow analogy.

 

2) Who said anything about "owing anything" to the other team? Siena, by the way, was forced to schedule UAlbany six years ago. UAlbany had already been initiated into the ranks of Division I two years prior to the first modern series. Your AD had a tremendous pressure to put us on your schedule. Whether the first game occurred in 2001 or 2003, if you had not scheduled us, Siena would have looked very foolish in the whole Capital District. The public wanted this game, and it was really taken out of the hands of the school officials.

 

3) Your treatment of NJIT this year compared to the contract terms you gave UAlbany show Siena's double standard. You claim that the contract terms depend on the relative strength of your opponent. Well, we're legit now, and NJIT isn't.

 

4) Your comparison with Syracuse misses the mark. My major point in negotiating a new contract with Siena is to see UAlbany as the home game every once in a while. During our 5-year contract with Syracuse, we played that role once. In six straight years with Siena, that hasn't happened. It needs to change, and it needs to occur next year.

 

5) Your arguments fall completely flat, in my estimation. It makes me believe even more fervently than ever that an equal contract is the only equitable contract. Siena does not bring any more to the table today than UAlbany does . The days of Siena's certain superiority have passed, and UAlbany's potential can only increase faster than yours.

18264[/snapback]

 

1) The comparison is stupid and off the mark. Jim Crow laws were in place to keep a segment of the population that should have equal rights and opportunities from getting those rights. College Basketball is a business and a priviledge, they are no God Given rights. It's a competition that is all about doing what is right for your team or your program within the rules. It is a horrible analogy.

 

2) What public was clamoring for a game? UAlbany fans and Rodger Wyland? Most local fans couldn't care less if the two played, certainly most Siena fans didn't want it because of the RPI hit and the fact that it really was a no win game. And boy, that first game had to be the ugliest game I have ever had the misfortune of watching.

 

3) Again, this was a one time only deal with NJIT. When they scheduled the game, the expectation was that Siena would suck last year and probably again this year. It was an attempt to guarantee a couple of wins for a program expected to be needing a confidence boost this year. You are not going to get too many Siena fans defending the decision to play them twice and you wont see it again. The difference is that UAlbany is perceived as a tougher team than NJIT, so playing them twice with a team expected to struggling with their confidence did not meet the need. Now, if Siena had scheduled a home and home against UAlb this year, then I would think it would of said a lot about what Siena though about UAlb's returning team. (That's a joke people, lighten up)

 

4) Yes, but in the one home year, UAlb had to pay a huge guarantee to get Syracuse to come to Albany. If I am not correct, UAlbany lost a boat load of money on that game because they were forced to price the tickets too high. So, Syracuse got 4 home games and a 5th guarantee game out of one contract. That is an unfair deal. If you want to see the difference between the two programs, Syracuse comes to play Albany and draws 8,500 ... they come to play Siena and draw 15,500.

 

5) I am not saying that UAlbany does not deserve a better deal; I just wouldn't expect everything to change overnight. The game has become important to both sides but it will only get played if both agree that the terms offered are fair compensation for the benefits derrived. If the contract does not get done, UAlbany fans will blame Siena and Siena fans will blame UAlbany; the truth will probably be somewhere in the middle. But it comes right down to it, none of us know what either side needs in order to sign the deal.

 

I am not against UAlbany getting fair, equitable treatment but I think reasonable minds can disagree on what is fair and equitable. Personally, I think the previous contract was mutually beneficial, Siena got a decent payday, UAlbany also got a decent pay day plus media attention/exposure and a game to rally it's fan base around. I am no longer a season's ticket holder (I've got young kids at home), so I couldn't care less if UAlbany was the home team at some point, but Siena has 3000 plus reasons not to let that happen.

[olddog71]

[1) The comparison is stupid and off the mark.  Jim Crow laws were in place to keep a segment of the population that should have equal rights and opportunities from getting those rights.  College Basketball is a business and a priviledge, they are no God Given rights.  It's a competition that is all about doing what is right for your team or your program within the rules.  It is a horrible analogy.

 

2) What public was clamoring for a game?  UAlbany fans and Rodger Wyland?  Most local fans couldn't care less if the two played, certainly most Siena fans didn't want it because of the RPI hit and the fact that it really was a no win game.  And boy, that first game had to be the ugliest game I have ever had the misfortune of watching. 

 

3) Again, this was a one time only deal with NJIT.  When they scheduled the game, the expectation was that Siena would suck last year and probably again this year.  It was an attempt to guarantee a couple of wins for a program expected to be needing a confidence boost this year.  You are not going to get too many Siena fans defending the decision to play them twice and you wont see it again.  The difference is that UAlbany is perceived as a tougher team than NJIT, so playing them twice with a team expected to struggling with their confidence did not meet the need.  Now, if Siena had scheduled a home and home against UAlb this year, then I would think it would of said a lot about what Siena though about UAlb's returning team. (That's a joke people, lighten up)

 

4) Yes, but in the one home year, UAlb had to pay a huge guarantee to get Syracuse to come to Albany.  If I am not correct, UAlbany lost a boat load of money on that game because they were forced to price the tickets too high.  So, Syracuse got 4 home games and a 5th guarantee game out of one contract.  That is an unfair deal.  If you want to see the difference between the two programs, Syracuse comes to play Albany and draws 8,500 ... they come to play Siena and draw 15,500.

 

5)  I am not saying that UAlbany does not deserve a better deal; I just wouldn't expect everything to change overnight.  The game has become important to both sides but it will only get played if both agree that the terms offered are fair compensation for the benefits derrived.  If the contract does not get done, UAlbany fans will blame Siena and Siena fans will blame UAlbany; the truth will probably be somewhere in the middle. But it comes right down to it, none of us know what either side needs in order to sign the deal. 

 

I am not against UAlbany getting fair, equitable treatment but I think reasonable minds can disagree on what is fair and equitable.  Personally, I think the previous contract was mutually beneficial, Siena got a decent payday, UAlbany also got a decent pay day plus media attention/exposure and a game to rally it's fan base around.  I am no longer a season's ticket holder (I've got young kids at home), so I couldn't care less if UAlbany was the home team at some point, but Siena has 3000 plus reasons not to let that happen.

18268[/snapback]

 

1) My Jim Crow analogy, once again, refers to FUTURE contracts. We are equal now, so we should have equal seating arrangements. The analogy is NOT stupid, and I resent your condescension.

 

2) Wrong. Why did so many fans show up for the first game? And if I recall, the majority of them were Siena fans. If they weren't interested, why did they make the effort to get to the game? Perhaps you weren't in the Capital District when the older series was the best college basketball in town. Many people remembered the old series and wanted to bring it back.

 

3) The reason why you signed the NJIT agreement was not so much a confidence booster as you claim. Why do I know this? Because I've seen for more than a year comments posted on your board about how much more improved Siena's team was going to be this year. It does not make a lot of sense to schedule two cupcake events when you have loftier goals. The greater reason why you scheduled NJIT twice was to fit something in your schedule, something Siena was desperate to do since the idea of a joint tournament with UAlbany fell through. Simply put, you needed game dates, and nothing else was available.

 

4) UAlbany scheduled Syracuse to put itself on the basketball map. Nobody was fooled into thinking that UAlbany ever had a legitimate chance of winning any of the five games. Even though UAlbany may have lost a lot of money on the one year when it hosted the game, it brought money to the school in the other four years. Those games encouraged interest in a program for the alumni and current students when we were a fledgling Division I school. Comparing the reasons why you and UAlbany played Syracuse is ridiculous.

 

5) I have never said that you weren't in favor of fairer and more equitable terms. I just find that you are not really willing to understand what a fair contract is.

 

6) Three thousand of your season ticket holders can still see the same number of Siena home games, according to my proposal. UAlbany just won't be one of them every year. You still have not addressed the issue or provided your rationale as to why you think UAlbany MUST be the visiting team every year and why we can NEVER have the better seats under any circumstances. If you cannot bend on that stipulation, then you can never claim that you seek an equitable contract.

[SienaTony]

You know what after reading you Albany guys whine on how you getting shafted on the current contract and how you want everything to be fair, I’ve changed my mind on the Cue. Siena should play there every other year, In the interest of fairness Siena should get 2250 seats each year and in keeping with the fairness issue Siena will give UAlb 2250 tickets the following year at the Pepsi,( fair is fair) since we are only exchanging tickets, each team gets to keep the revenue from its respective home game

 

That should let Bob and OldDog sit in their cushy season ticket seat at the Cue, of course it won’t do anything for the 2,000 or 3000 Albany fans that won’t get to see the game, but what the heck Bob and Old dog will be all set. I’m sure McElroy won’t mind the potential 50K a year he’ll pass up by not playing at the Pepsi as long as Bob and Old dog are happy in their season seat ;-) Hope that works for you guys ;-)

 

Enjoy boys

[olddog71]

You know what after reading you Albany guys whine on how you getting shafted on the current contract and how you want everything to be fair, I’ve changed my mind on the Cue. Siena should play there every other year, In the interest of fairness Siena should get 2250 seats each year and in keeping with the fairness issue Siena will give UAlb 2250 tickets the following year at the Pepsi,( fair is fair)  since we are only exchanging tickets, each team gets to keep the revenue from its respective home game

 

That should let Bob and OldDog sit in their cushy season ticket seat at the Cue, of course it won’t do anything for the 2,000 or 3000 Albany fans that won’t get to see the game, but what the heck Bob  and Old dog will be all set. I’m sure McElroy won’t mind the potential 50K a year he’ll pass up  by not  playing at the Pepsi as long as Bob and Old dog are happy in their season seat ;-) Hope that works for you guys ;-)

 

Enjoy boys

18271[/snapback]

 

That's a mature response on your part, Tony. Why don't you deal with the real issues?

 

Let me ask you an honest question, Tony? Did you ever attend an event at the Pepsi that wasn't a Siena basketball game? If so, did you sit in the same seat as your season ticket? Did you expect to sit in the very same seat?

[SienaTony]

My point is you guys are arguing over nothing. Not a thing we say on this board or any other board will have any effect on the contract. I am 100% confident continuing the game is in the best interest of both Albany and Siena. I am also 100% confident the two sides will work out a fair deal. What that deal is I don’t know. But I do know whatever the deal is; I’ll be at the game

 

All we are doing is repeating the same thing over and over. Send your thoughts to your AD and lets let the two AD’s work out the details. I’m quite confident the deal will be better for Albany this time around – fair enough?

[bob87]

You know what after reading you Albany guys whine on how you getting shafted on the current contract and how you want everything to be fair, I’ve changed my mind on the Cue. Siena should play there every other year, In the interest of fairness Siena should get 2250 seats each year and in keeping with the fairness issue Siena will give UAlb 2250 tickets the following year at the Pepsi,( fair is fair)  since we are only exchanging tickets, each team gets to keep the revenue from its respective home game

 

That should let Bob and OldDog sit in their cushy season ticket seat at the Cue, of course it won’t do anything for the 2,000 or 3000 Albany fans that won’t get to see the game, but what the heck Bob  and Old dog will be all set. I’m sure McElroy won’t mind the potential 50K a year he’ll pass up  by not  playing at the Pepsi as long as Bob and Old dog are happy in their season seat ;-) Hope that works for you guys ;-)

 

Enjoy boys

18271[/snapback]

 

That's a mature response on your part, Tony. Why don't you deal with the real issues?

 

Let me ask you an honest question, Tony? Did you ever attend an event at the Pepsi that wasn't a Siena basketball game? If so, did you sit in the same seat as your season ticket? Did you expect to sit in the very same seat?

18274[/snapback]

 

 

 

Becuase that is ST MO when he doesn't have anything constructive to say. All I am asking for is the same contract that is agreed to between 99% of equal teams. That is you play one game at one teams home and one game in the others. It works for NJIT/Siena. It works for Bucknell/Albany Utah Valley State/Albany and it works for all conference teams unless the league is 2 big for a home and home. It doesn't matter if the homes are 5 miles away or 2500.

I think a standard contract the visitor gets 50-100 seats. I can live with that in this series. We don't need any seats for the at siena game if we get a home game.

And as Old Dog pointed out we are only talking about the next contract.