Showing posts with label epic fail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label epic fail. Show all posts

Nice try, Black Army.



BLACK ARMY PURCHASE ATTEMPT OF CHIVAS USA

ALTAY TASCIOGLU
MARCH 2014
ISSUE
The issue presented is whether the Chivas USA supporter group Black Army (BA) violates any legal or ethical guidelines by their fundraising efforts to purchase the club. As a general ethical rule, attempted purchases of professional sports teams should be void of impropriety and do no damage to the existing reputation of the club or fan base. My analysis will address the process more than the end result because the likelihood of success by the BA is slim. However, especially in the social media age, significant funds can be raised which could lead to allegations of misrepresentation, misappropriation of funds, and possibly fraud. The intentions of the BA are no doubt innocent, but the process leaves much to be desired.
FACTS
The MLS purchased Chivas USA from Jorge Vergara after a dismal club performance both on and off the field over the last four seasons. The BA wrote a letter to MLSCommissioner Don Garber and requested an opportunity to purchase the club at market value while citing a desire to never repeat the ownership mistakes exhibited by Vergara. The letter announced a fundraising initiative with a pledge to donate 100% of the funds to MLS Works (non-profit arm of MLS) in the event the bid is unsuccessful.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this essay is to voice concerns regarding the fundraising efforts. 2014 will mark my sixth season as a Chivas USA season ticket holder. I love the club, city, and its supporters. The BA shares my passion. In a time where Chivas USA fans are few and far between, the BA is one of the few groups that stuck with the club during tough times. They are lead by smart and energetic supporters who truly want the club to prosper. While I understand the BA wants to parlay passion into more control over the club, the group shows no signs of the experience needed to manage millions of dollars and an MLS Franchise. The same holds true for any potential interest in the club. Hopes and dreams aren’t enough without planning, preparation, organization, resources, and qualifications.
MOTIVE / CHARITABLE DONATION
Why is the BA launching the fundraising drive? My first inclination was publicity. The self-proclaimed “Infamous” BA is a group that prides itself on having called for the firing of two coaches before their eventual termination. Yet, this is the same group that rightly criticized former ownership and their commitment to the club. In essence, they requested the firings of coaches who were attempting “mission impossible.” The BA enjoys their fare share of attention.
During an interview with TheGoatParade.com, BA President Angel Mendoza outlined the group’s plan. He said, “The next step [after buying the team] would be to hold a celebration on doing the impossible. Then setting up a structure of the right staff to make sure the club is successful. We would be looking for a location and investor for a stadium.” Therefore, Mendoza admits to not having a staff structure before fundraising begins.
The group recently proclaimed the primary objective is ownership of the club and not publicity. Yet, the BA chose to attach a charitable donation to their bid if/when they fall short of the goal. The question is why? If the group wants to purchase an MLS Team, the public should expect an all out effort to present a comprehensive bid which includes financing, personnel, corporate structure, endorsements by community leaders, potential soccer operations staff, scouting, youth development, media relations, corporate partnerships, leadership structure, accounting, and many other necessities before fundraising begins. This is known as a prospectus. Merriam-Webster defines prospectus as “a printed statement that describes something (such as a new business or investment) and that is sent to people who may want to be involved in it or invest in it.”
According to Investopedia, “a prospectus should contain the facts that an investor needs to make an informed investment decision.” Such a plan is only fair to a potential donor or investor if expected to part with hard earned money. Common sense indicates that if the above elements are missing prior to soliciting funds, the bid can only be considered a ploy to get publicity. The BA most likely attached the MLS Works pledge to acquire some legitimacy in the project.
The group may also choose to fundraise exclusively for MLS Works if they feel passionately about the cause. Why involve Chivas USA? Also, nothing is stopping the BA from soliciting funds and simply making refunds if they fall short. Mendoza added, “Even if we do not reach our goal to purchase the club, we would like to raise enough to invest into it.” So from start, the BA is straddling between ownership, investment, and a charitable donation while still not offering a prospectus for each situation.
Mendoza was also quoted as saying, “We are realists and not dumb, our chances are very low, but it is fun to do the impossible.” Yet earlier in the interview he insisted the BA wanted to “put our money where our mouth is.” To summarize, the BA wants to have fun and celebrate while soliciting other people’s money and re-directing it to charity in the event they fall short. No refunds allowed.
LEGAL ISSUES
Why is this bad you ask? What’s wrong with donating a few bucks to charity? Simple answer—Misrepresentation. The BA has not started to fundraise at a large scale. With the Internet and social media, anything can happen. Donors could make contributions all across the world. The 2014 World Cup may attract new followers to MLS and possibly new donors. Lets say the BA raised $100,000 from 2,000 people. The BA may personally know only a fraction of the donors. That means the majority of donors are banking on assumptions that a somewhat serious and comprehensive prospectus exists and contains the required elements. Or else, they (donors) would have just donated money directly to MLS Works. However, what if no plan currently exists? What if it’s just a few guys on social media trying to raise funds? How do donors know that the $100,000 won’t be mishandled? How about oversight? The questions are endless. If it is proven that no prospectus exists and the internal goal was notoriety, the BA meets all 9 elements of common law fraud.
(1) a representation; 
(2) its falsity; 
(3) its materiality; 
(4) the speaker’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; 
(5) the speaker’s intent that it be acted upon by the recipient in a manner reasonably contemplated; 
(6) the hearer’s ignorance of its falsity; 
(7) the hearer’s reliance on its truth; 
(8) the right to rely on it; 
(9) the plaintiff’s consequent and proximate injury.
It only takes a handful of upset individuals to say, “Hey wait, I thought this was a serious bid. I want my money back.” Allow me to use an analogy. Some politicians run for President of the United States when they know the odds of winning are slim to none. They do so to advance a message and make speeches. However, they typically present some campaign and strategy plans before soliciting funds. The pubic would find it highly inappropriate for the candidate to not offer a comprehensive plan before soliciting funds and simply converting the money to charity knowing they (candidate) could reap the benefits of the public donation and halfhearted campaign. The notice of a possibility of charitable donation and subsequent consent mean nothing if the donor did not make an informed decision. This would be against public policy.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
My gut instinct tells me the BA was attempting to raise funds first and worry about the planning later. In my opinion, that course of action is highly unethical. The BA can create an infrastructure to refund donations in the event of an unsuccessful bid. This alleviates the problem. While it may create accounting work, so would managing thousands of dollars and guarding against impropriety. If the BA refuses to refund the donors, one could ask what their true motives are.
I write this essay because I care about Chivas USA and its future. The club has suffered on and off the field over the last four seasons. From discrimination lawsuits, negativeHBO segments, poor marketing, awful attendance, and club futility, Chivas USA was the model of dysfunction in professional sports. All of this changed when the MLSpurchased the club. Garber wrote the following to Chivas USA supporters in an open letter. He said, “In the coming months, the league will work to find a new ownership group that will establish a new vision and plan for the team, and will be committed to building a new stadium in Los Angeles. We have already had initial discussions with a number of very qualified potential owners and it is our intention to transition the team to a new owner sometime this year.”
I trust Garber after seeing the league grow over the last decade. I’m finally excited about the direction of the club. In my opinion, even if one donor is upset with the handling of funds, the botched fundraiser further tarnishes the reputation of the club and its fan base.
CONCLUSION
The BA is smarter than this. The decision to purchase the club and raise funds came approximately one week after the MLS purchased Chivas USA. If they had this plan all along, one would assume some prospectus would be available now to potential donors. Most likely, the plan was concocted shortly after the sale. In that event, the plan lacks considerable thought and several deficiencies are obvious.
Nobody can question the passion of the BA. Nobody can doubt their love for the club. Nobody believes the BA is doing this for money. I admire and respect the BA. However, this is a bad move and I hope the BA will at least consider switching to a refund policy.
FC BARCELONA STATUTES
The following link points to the FC Barcelona statutes. The BA can use the statutes as a guide in preparing a detailed prospectus before soliciting funds.

Oh Russia...


SOCHI, Russia — The Russian men’s hockey players were put forward as the host country’s most important entry in the Sochi Olympics, the only team that really mattered to many here. No one will ever know for sure the pressure they faced, only the humiliating ending they encountered.

Russia was holding its collective breath with this team, and was prepared to keep holding it through the gold medal game on Sunday, the grand finale before the closing ceremony. Instead, all the air was let out in the most dispiriting way on Wednesday, in a 3-1 loss to Finland in the quarterfinals. They did not get close.

Russia also struggled in the preliminary round, losing to the United States in a shootout. The Russians then had to play a qualification game, against Norway, to reach the quarterfinals. None of their games inspired much confidence.

It was always gold medal or bust for the Russians, who for the past 22 years, since the breakup of the Soviet Union, have endured teams that looked strong on paper but could not find their way to a gold medal.

MEN’S TOURNAMENT ICE HOCKEY
Quarterfinal 2
Team 1 2 3 Score
 Finland 2 1 0 3
 Russia 1 0 0 1

Between 1956, when it made its ice hockey debut, and the breakup in 1991, the Soviet Union won the Olympic gold in seven of nine appearances. In 1992, a unified team composed of the splintered Soviet republics also won. In the five Winter Games since, Russia has won two medals; a silver in 1998 and a bronze in 2002.

The pressure on the men to win an independent Russia’s first gold medal on home soil was greater than anything faced by the United States in 2002 or Canada in 2010.

“Our fans are a little bit tougher, I think,” Sergei Fedorov, a forward on the 1998 and 2002 Olympic teams, said recently. “They don’t like when the national team loses.”

A few weeks before the Sochi Games, Teemu Selanne conceded that the Finnish team he would be captaining was not the most talented in the tournament. In a best-of-seven series, Selanne said, Finland would be hard-pressed to defeat Russia, Canada or the United States, the pre-Games favorites.

“But in one game,” he said, “I like our chances against anybody.”

At 43, Selanne is the wise old lion of the Finnish team, a six-time Olympian who kept retirement at bay so he could have one more shot at an elusive gold medal. On Wednesday, Selanne was the better, more energetic No. 8 on the ice, outplaying his supremely skilled but strangely silent counterpart, Alex Ovechkin.

Selanne scored the go-ahead goal, fittingly on Finland’s eighth shot, with 2 minutes 22 seconds remaining in the first period, on a pass from the left circle by Mikael Granlund. He picked up the first assist on the third, feeding Granlund on a power play in the sixth minute of the second.

Granlund’s goal came after the Russians’ missed a couple sterling scoring opportunities. The forward Alexander Radulov, who has been in and out of favor with his coach, Zinetula Bilyaletdinov, whiffed on a shot on a breakaway and Ovechkin, who had not scored since his first shift of these Games, fired a close-range shot that the Finnish goaltender, Tuukka Rask, stopped with his right pad.

Ilya Kovalchuk, the former N.H.L. player who returned to Russia to play for the Kontinental Hockey League team in St. Petersburg, opened the scoring with a power-play goal in the eighth minute of the first, his one-timer beating Rask on the stick side.

Less than two minutes later, the Finns’ Juhamatti Aaltonen tied the scored – and quieted the crowd – with an attempt from the left circle, Finland’s favored shooting spot, that beat Sergei Bobrovsky on his stick side.

The Russians, or at least their news media, knew better than to take Finland lightly. The Finns are 4-2 against Russia in Olympic competition, a statistic one reporter alluded to when he asked Bilyaletdinov pointedly the night before the game: “The Finnish team is an inconvenient rival to us. The statistics show that. Have you analyzed what we should do to take advantage of our strong side and their weaknesses?”

Bilyaletdninov’s short answer then was that the Russians’ best scorers, led by Ovechkin, had to keep putting shots on the net. After his first-shift goal in Russia’s opener against Slovakia, Ovechkin was scoreless on his next 23 shots.

Rask, the Boston Bruins goalie, made big save after big save, and the Finnish defense was stout in front of him to keep the Russians, and their fans, from getting back into the game. It all transpired as Selanne had predicted last month when he said, “The Olympics is a bigger ice surface and it’s only 10 days. In that short time it’s going to be who finds the little things or whose system is better.”

New Year's Day 2010 Quick hits

Kobe Bryant knows how to open a new year in dramatic fashion. A buzzer-beater against the Sacramento Kings lifted the Los Angeles Lakers to a 109-108 win. Heh. Old hat for the Black Mamba come playoff time?

---

People on deviantART can't tell me that my gallery is just desktop screenshots now. I took plenty of photos of the Rose Parade for your enjoyment/web design use because those folks special (aside from those ungrateful art-thief-hunting bastards who I choose not to tolerate), nuff said.

---

AFC Wimbledon and Melbourne Victory wasted their games to open the new year with defeats, but Long Beach State's men's basketball team took the cake in terms of futility. This team is on a dangerous path, losing in overtime to UC Riverside 68-66.

Dan Monson, how dare you waste the nonconference gauntlet tonight. Epic fail. Again, I say, EPIC FAIL! When you cannot beat the Sisters of Mercy with your team's shooting (and on top of that, not learning your lesson from the LMU disasterfest), the Changi Prison guards need to give your players a caning or two.

One last time: E.P.I.C. F.A.I.L. Make 'em run suicides for the plan backfiring on you.

---

Ohio State was going to win the Rose Bowl. Oregon fell victim to the SI jinx, 26-17.