to me... Sia☺giah
tRUMP has an old, personal beef with the NFL, just revealed
Sun Oct 1, 2017 2:08am
64.222.144.78

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-nfl-league-usfl-sued-tweet-three-dollars-2017-9

"Indentured" author and New York Times writer Joe Nocera spoke to us earlier this year about the short-lived United States Football League (USFL) and Donald Trump's involvement in its demise. Following is a transcript of this video.


The United States Football League with a league intended to play football in the spring that lasted between 1983 and 1985. So they had three seasons. And as a spring league in that first year, it was pretty, they didn’t do badly, it didn’t make money, but they had decent TV ratings, they had two TV networks, they had Herschel Walker, they had Steve Young, and they had Jim Kelly. It had possibilities.


Trump buys the Generals, before the second season. The first thing he says is, “If God had wanted spring football he wouldn't have invented baseball.” So he buys into a spring league having every intention to move it to the fall to go head-to-head with the NFL, because that's the way he thinks.


It was a terrible, terrible decision. At the beginning of the third season, the league actually decided that for the fourth season they would go to the fall. The networks were furious, the players knew it wasn’t going to work out, the losses really started to mount, the owners were getting incredibly upset. Trump had a solution, however. His solution was, “We’re gonna sue. We’re going to sue the NFL for being monopolists.”


The large part of the argument was, “We can’t get a network contract because they have all three networks locked up so they must be a monopolist.” The jury did, in fact, rule that the NFL was a monopolist that had harmed the USFL. They had asked for $1.2 billion in damages, and the jury said, “We’re going to give you $1.” And in antitrust cases that’s tripled so that’s $3. Add interest that’s $3.76.


And that’s how much the USFL got. And that was the end of the USFL, thanks mainly to Donald Trump.

--------------------------------

MORE:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-donald-trump-bills-20140529-story.html

NFL could use a history lesson on would-be team owner Donald Trump


I'm all for Donald Trump owning another football team, but only if the NFL is looking at developmental-league expansion in, say, Crimea.


Trump says he's actually interested in taking over Buffalo which, frankly, is not far enough upwind from the stench.


"I'm going to give it a heavy shot," Trump recently told the Buffalo News of his interest in buying the team.


Trump's history with team ownership is shakier than his hair in a windstorm. My bigger problem, however, is Trump trying to rewrite history.


Let the record show that Trump, three decades ago, not only killed off the New Jersey Generals of the United States Football League but also killed off the entire USFL.


I still take this personally because, as a cub reporter, I covered the USFL's franchise in Los Angeles. And the end of the USFL in 1985 meant the end of my highly entertaining assignment.


Many fine people lost jobs because of Trump's audacious, predatory and unnecessary business practices.


One person, still dear to my heart, was sent to the unemployment line -- my future wife.  


Trump is soft-brushing history now because he wants to suck up to NFL owners in his quest to sweet-talk his way into the world's most exclusive country club.


The way I remember it is this: Trump bought the New Jersey Generals in 1984 with the hope he could ruin the USFL and then force a merger with the NFL. Trump was really only interested in one team getting absorbed -- his.


The USFL was a modestly budgeted spring league with a puncher's chance at survival until Trump arrived and drove player salaries through the roof while encouraging the USFL to make the suicidal move of taking on the NFL in the fall.


When USFL franchises started to hemorrhage under the financial strain caused by Trump, he helped convince USFL owners their only chance was to sue the NFL.


"I didn't bring the lawsuit," Trump recently told the Buffalo News. "The lawsuit was brought by the league."


Yeah, right. And that logjam on the George Washington Bridge was due to a "traffic study."


Trump then had the gall to say the USFL "won" its antitrust lawsuit against the NFL.


Yeah, right, II. The USFL sued for $1.69 billion and was awarded $1, tripled to $3 under antitrust laws.


Not even Charlie Sheen would call that "winning."


The USFL folded, thousands of lives were disrupted and -- here's the real kicker -- the NFL didn't absorb Trump's team.


The story of Trump's role in the USFL might best be retold by an inebriated Justin Bieber on an episode of Comedy Central's "Drunk History."


The Trump-supported litigation back then portrayed the NFL in the worst, monopolistic light possible.


And now, Trump wants everyone to forget that, no hard feelings, and hand him over the Buffalo Bills.


The NFL would be fools to let Trump in, but the world is full of fools, poor and rich. Ownership has turned over significantly in 30 years and the NFL might award a franchise to a despot so long as his billion-dollar check clears.


Maybe Trump and the NFL deserve each other.


Smart people should know, though, that Trump has already killed one league and once, long ago, tried to inflict serious harm on the NFL.


Thank goodness for the NFL that the USFL "won" its case.


Trump can spin history any way he wants. He can massage it and sugarcoat it -- even turn a blind eye to it.


But he can't rewrite it because there are still too many eyewitnesses.


Copyright © 2017, Los Angeles Times

-------------------------

CLEARLY, tRUMP HAS A PERSONAL BEEF WITH THE NFL and he's now found a way to "get them" because of his profound humiliation in his "win" of a pitiful $3.76 in the lawsuit.




    • Just revealed???KenS, Sun Oct 1 3:49am
      I’m at a loss here. What in the world makes this new information? I was puzzled by the lack of response to my USFL post a few days back. Is this supposed to be news? I had assumed everyone understood ... more
      • News to somePikes, Sun Oct 1 9:13pm
        If a subject isn't on someone's radar, it might as well not exist. I didn't follow the Trump USFL foray and NFL weaseling because I don't care about any of it. I knew, but just superficially. No... more
      • I didn't happen to notice your post the other day. Just because it was front page news (on the SPORTS PAGE) about tRUMP's "major litigation", doesn't mean a thing. I'm not a sports fan, couldn't care ... more
      • You assume too muchPH👏🏾👏🏾EY, Sun Oct 1 9:07am
        With so much going down, and memory being a bit ephemeral, etc. etc. we cannot be held to assumptions of this kind, even in bold type.
      • Remember, if it isn't in the news this weekSprout, Sun Oct 1 9:07am
        it's ancient history to some.
        • Or happened when you were a child..HeavyHemi, Sun Oct 1 1:14pm
          Talk about an epic sarcasm fail.
          • Seriously,PH👻👻EY, Mon Oct 2 8:15am
            I wish I could follow your train of thought. Is it your juxtspositioning of the words in your sentence structure? I know I butcher the language and structure, too. And at times my mind drifts off to... more
            • Oh PUHLEEZE... Just stop it already.Sia☺giah, Mon Oct 2 2:41pm
              I don't want this thread to turn ALSO into a series of jabs between particular folks who like to exchange personal jabs by looking for nitpicking ways to aggravate one another. DISCLAIMER: This is... more
              • My postcard honest.PH👁👁EY, Mon Oct 2 4:06pm
                I asked the poster to try and reword his cryptic English in order to NOT misinterpret what he is trying to convey. But why me? Do you not believe Sorout and Hemi were not sucking dry the ether?
                • I'm well aware that there were others involved. I thought that was abundantly obvious when I wrote this in the post: "DISCLAIMER: This is NOT intended as an attack on "you", in particular, but merely ... more
                  • That seems clear. (nm)PH👀👀EY, Mon Oct 2 4:22pm
                    • Okay, good, some progress here. Sia☺giah, Mon Oct 2 4:31pm
                      I always hesitate to respond to any one particular person's post when attempting to address a group behavior because, whomever it is, ALWAYS seems to take it personally, no matter how clear I try to... more
                      • No, I do NOT take your kind admonishments as personal.PH👏🏾👏🏾EY, Mon Oct 2 7:37pm
                        Indeed, in spite of my retorts on occasion to other posts, no matter the seeming slights, I have never taken this communication venue as anything but words. Granted, words have meaning. A certain... more
              • This Board, R&E, and Most BoardsMerlin, Mon Oct 2 3:03pm
                would have a very much lower number of post, which would be shorter but better (and a lot less booooooring ;-), if posters discussed the topic and not each other.
            • Seriously...HeavyHemi, Mon Oct 2 12:42pm
              Pplay dumb elsewhere.