GNN: Wanted to ask a few questions relating to the podcasts for our
interview page:
Tim Balderramos: No problem.
GNN: While you have stressed your not wanting any "ill will" your
podcasts seem to create it. Why all the soundbites, etc.?
TB: The reasoning behind the style of the podcasts is twofold. One,
I wanted to attempt to keep the conversations light and entertaining.
Really, the soundbites were meant to be more "tongue in cheek" than
anything. That said I felt they also served to emphasize the baffling
reasoning behind certain rules, decisions, etc. I do understand that
some have taken offense but bear in mind I have used them to poke a little fun
at myself as well (i.e., the Palpatine bit from Star Wars).
GNN: You pushed the concept of "reaching across the aisle," but then
seem to blow off Mr. Tech's answers he provided for your 3rd podcast - which you
asked for in order to "get both sides" out there. If the idea is to
"give and take," why were you unwilling to concede any viewpoints per
his responses?
TB: I might be willing to concede a few viewpoints if there had been
any of substance. While I appreciate that Tech did respond, his comments
were either political rhetoric, filled with egregious errors, or flat-out
evaded the question actually asked.
This is exactly why I had hoped for a live podcast, so we could stay on topic
and "sift to the marrow" as it were, versus doing the same 'ol
standoff-ish stuff we've done for decades. All I can say is: I gave him
and the former co-owners a chance to work with me....but I simply could not
wait forever.
As I stated before, this needs to be about "give and take."
There are several rulings from the old Board of Review, from the Rothman
Rulings, etc. that I absolutely do not agree with....but there may be a couple I
could be willing to abide with. Not out of a sense to simply "play
along" or due to "contract negotiations," but from the view that
they could actually make sense in a certain context. I only ask that
the others meet me somewhere in the middle in the same manner.
GNN: This latest swerve is very similar to what happened in the early 2000s from
our viewpoint. Can you explain how it differs?
TB: Well, I guess the main difference is putting an end to the whole
ownership argument. The plain truth of the matter is Tony and I were
partners....there was an attempt to oust me using a double standard....then
there was an attempt to illegally distribute shares of ownership that were
never surrendered in the first place....then there was Tony's selling
to me....then there was my agreeing to a co-owner format, followed by
another illegal attempt to oust me....and on and on...
Well, this time I decided no more of that. I am the sole owner of the
A.W.F. now....and that will be that. As for how we move forward, I
have brought, in effect, the old Senior Board back....no more elections, no more
arguing on that measure. It's time now to roll up our sleeves and work on
whipping the federation back into shape. Tony will continue to handle
Tier 1 and 2, and I will handle Tiers 3 and 4....so we can focus on separate
things for now....but I hope we can find common ground someday and work together
on future projects.
GNN: Considering the "entertaining" podcasts, etc., the suggestion has
been made that this is all part of an eloborate work - possibly in concert with
Mr. Tech. Can you confirm or deny this?
TB: (Laughs) The world may never know....
GNN: What is the "endgame" this time in your opinion?
TB: This could go two ways: The "powers that be" will
either come clean and admit, if only to themselves, that there were some
shennanigans that went on back in the day; or two, they will continue to pull
a "Roger Clemens" and deny, deny deny....only this time they will be forced
to do so without being able to sweep key information, footage, etc. under
the rug. As Minnesota Senator Al Franken has said: You're entitled
to your own opinions, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.
GNN: Thank you for your time.
TB: On behalf of the A.W.F., I thank you.