PDA

View Full Version : Solvent?



Hicks
07-01-2011, 04:01 PM
Do you think the Pacers are solvent?

So we're clear, I"m talking about them having assets in excess of liabilities.

Major Cold
07-01-2011, 04:13 PM
What do you mean by the Pacers are solvent? Can the Pacers be mixed up and dissolved with other liquids, gases, or solids? Sure just look at the Fever/Pacer marketing.

CooperManning
07-01-2011, 04:20 PM
http://i.imgur.com/MLpAl.png

neosmndrew
07-01-2011, 04:22 PM
Please use words us feeble-brains can understand.

No, they are hemorrhaging money.

wintermute
07-01-2011, 04:28 PM
Technically, the Pacers are solvent, because we've not heard that they have problems paying their bills.

I voted "No" though, because I think the Pacers are losing money, which I think is the question you really wanted to ask.

Hicks
07-01-2011, 04:35 PM
How can they pay their bills and lose money at the same time?

That almost sounds to me like saying "He pays off his credit cards every month, but he's getting further into debt."

wintermute
07-01-2011, 04:39 PM
How can they pay their bills and lose money at the same time?

That almost sounds to me like saying "He pays off his credit cards every month, but he's getting further into debt."

Yes, your second statement is a good analogy. The fact that he can still get loans means he's still solvent.

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics? Not being solvent means you're bankrupt, means you have to close shop, means you have to sell your house and other property at distressed prices...

Hicks
07-01-2011, 04:56 PM
Yes, your second statement is a good analogy. The fact that he can still get loans means he's still solvent.

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics? Not being solvent means you're bankrupt, means you have to close shop, means you have to sell your house and other property at distressed prices...

Maybe I'm just using the wrong word, then.

I thought solvent was a matter of (and I may be abusing this as well) being in the black versus in the red.

DemonHunter1105
07-01-2011, 04:59 PM
We're able to survive currently...but if the **** hits the fan, and we have to pay off all outstanding debts at one time then we are boned.

Trophy
07-01-2011, 05:09 PM
We're fine as it currently stands, but it's just the beginning. Our ownership definitely has enough money to pay for what not. I mean we aren't a bankrupt franchise.

Owners are definitely prepared for this than the players which is why they will probably win.

I don't think Herb is looking to sell the team yet and he's got the money, but hey anything can happen to any owner out there causing them to sell.

So yes, the Pacers are "solvent" I think? As of now.

EDIT: This is actually a good thing for the Pacers. If there is no season, we'd have a ton of options in the FA market in 2012.

Sollozzo
07-01-2011, 05:18 PM
Here is what I call mega BS on:

In the 90's when they were selling Conseco to the public, we were told that it was the arena the Simons just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA. MSA was a money failure and the Simons would go under if they had to keep playing in it. Conseco was the arena that would save the day and make them money.

Yet they lose money (allegedly) in 10 of the first 11 years of it's existence, including the Finals year?

The Simons are billionaires who built one of the most successful mall businesses in the United States. They are clearly very smart. Yet when the team was at the peak of it's popularity and the city ready to give them anything, they somehow couldn't negotiate a deal that would make them money in a year where:

1) They sold out all 41 games
2) They had the NBA Finals
3) Had massive public interest in the team in the arena.

Yeah, I call mega BS on that. This was the arena they just had to have to remain competitive NBA, yet somehow we're supposed to believe they are so ditzy that they couldn't even negotiate a deal that would make them money when they sold out every game and went to the Finals?

These men had been NBA owners for well over a decade when they were drawing up the Conseco plans, and they knew damn well what it took to make money in this league. Getting Conseco built was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them, and I'm supposed to believe they are so dumb that they couldn't capitalize on this golden opportunity? So dingy that they couldn't even negotiate a deal that would make them money when the arena was brand-spanking new while selling out every game on the way to a Finals run? So dingy that they negotiated a deal where this arena they just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA really ended up losing them money in 10 or 11 years?

Either two things happened:

1) They really did lose money in 10 of 11 years. That means they are bad businessmen if they couldn't capitalize on that golden opportunity they had, but that doesn't make any sense considering they logically should have known damn well what it took to make money in this league. Plus, they are billionaires off of their business success. They aren't fools.

2) They are lying.

What did they buy the Pacers for again? What are they worth now?

I've always thought their tantrum a year ago was because they are, in part, ticked that Irsay made out with an even better deal than them.

Trophy
07-01-2011, 05:40 PM
Here is what I call mega BS on:

In the 90's when they were selling Conseco to the public, we were told that it was the arena the Simons just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA. MSA was a money failure and the poor poor billionaire Simons would go under if they had to keep playing in it. Conseco was the arena that would save the day and make them money.

Yet they lose money (allegedly) in 10 of the first 11 years of it's existence, including the Finals year?

The Simons are billionaires who built one of the most successful mall businesses in the United States. They are clearly very smart. Yet when the team was at the peak of it's popularity and the city ready to give them anything, they somehow couldn't negotiate a deal that would make them money in a year where:

1) They sold out all 41 games
2) They had the NBA Finals
3) Had massive public interest in the team in the arena.

Yeah, I call mega BS on that. This was the arena they just had to have to remain competitive NBA, yet somehow we're supposed to believe they are so ditzy that they couldn't even negotiate a deal that would make them money when they sold out every game and went to the Finals?

These men had been NBA owners for well over a decade when they were drawing up the Conseco plans, and they knew damn well what it took to make money in this league. Getting Conseco built was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them, and I'm supposed to believe they are so dumb that they couldn't capitalize on this golden opportunity? So dingy that they couldn't even negotiate a deal that would make them money when the arena was brand-spanking new while selling out every game on the way to a Finals run? So dingy that they negotiated a deal where this arena they just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA really ended up losing them money in 10 or 11 years?

Either two things happened:

1) They really did lose money in 10 of 11 years. That means they are bad businessmen if they couldn't capitalize on that golden opportunity they have, but that doesn't make any sense considering they logically should have known damn well what it took to make money in this league. Plus, they are billionaires off of their business success. They aren't fools.

2) They are lying.

What did they buy the Pacers for again? What are they worth now?

I've always thought their tantrum a year ago was because they are, in part, ticked that Irsay made out with an even better deal than them.

I agree mostly.

First off, the Simons have been great owners and have had a lot of passion while owning the Pacers and had us some really good seasons.

We were lucky, not only to just get a new arena after MSA, but we got a state of the art building that has been awarded I think 3 times for being one of the nicest sports venues in America.

That says a lot and it says a lot that the Simons cared a lot to make an arena that says "Indiana Basketball" and one to be proud of.

Every game was soldout the year it opened in 99-00 and when we went to the Finals so that had to really skyrocket the profit.

And so on, we kept making the playoffs and despite the brawl, people kept on coming out and I'd say still making a good amount of money.

Now since not making the playoffs and yes the off the court nonsense having a lot to do with it, the attendance dipped which caused a portion of the money to be lost. Lucky enough, with Herb now being the sole owner, needed more money to help pay for the operating costs at the Fieldhouse thanks to the CIB.

Now making the playoffs this past season and showing the team's new image is a major positive in getting the tickets sold like it used to be and good for whoever may be owning this team down the road.

So to tie it all up, the Pacers aren't bankrupt or anywhere near bankrupt ala the Dodgers for example.

When the day comes for Simon to sell the team, he has a lot to show. The Fieldhouse is still as nice and appealing as the day it opened and we have a ton of cap space to go out and sign someone to make us a contending team again. In additon, with the idea of a season long lockout, we can very well grab a guy like Deron Williams with our cap space and the idea of a hard cap on its way.

Ownership transitions come and go a lot. There were a lot in the past few years so there will be an interested buyer.

Going back to our ownership, I also would not be surprised at all if Herb's son Steve takes over as the team's new owner as he does have ownership experience with the Reno Bighorns and also the family business.

Sandman21
07-01-2011, 06:28 PM
I remember hearing that the Simons had always operated the Pacers at a loss (letting the money from the malls cover things) way back just after the Finals run. It's entirely plausible.

Brad8888
07-01-2011, 07:42 PM
The Pacers are exactly as solvent currently as Herb Simon and his propensity to continue operating at a loss allows them to be, mitigated to an extent by the new CIB agreement with the taxpayers of our area chipping in for which reduces that loss.

In other words, no, I don't think the Pacers are self supporting, and I am thankful that Simon has continued to put up his money and talk the CIB into supporting the franchise without moving it.

Scot Pollard
07-01-2011, 07:54 PM
The Pacers are exactly as solvent currently as Herb Simon and his propensity to continue operating at a loss allows them to be, mitigated to an extent by the new CIB agreement with the taxpayers of our area chipping in for which reduces that loss.

In other words, no, I don't think the Pacers are self supporting, and I am thankful that Simon has continued to put up his money and talk the CIB into supporting the franchise without moving it.

The Pacers weren't going anywhere anyway.

The realistic options at that time were for Simon to sell the Pacers or he threatened the CIB to move, but we all knew he wasn't going to do that. He took that route.

So all worked out in the end for Simon. Now the CIB pays for the Fieldhouse and the Luc.

The whole moving thing seemed like a myth and some people are getting concerned about it.

Think about it. You need a very good and obvious reason to leave and it takes a lot to move. We don't have any kind of reason and it's foolish to think so.

It's like saying half the other teams out there have a reason to leave. Like the Rockets, Trail Blazers, or Pistons. They all have fairly the same type of fanbase as the Pacers do. They had their share of great seasons and nice crowds (kind of right now for Portland), but some have seen bad and attendance decreased as the team slowly sucked.

Speaking of the Pistons, they had recently sold the franchise to Tom Gores so ownership transitions happen quite often as did the Wizards, Warriors, and now the Hawks are up for sale.

I like Simon a lot and I really liked what he and Mel did a very good job as owners and times got tough in 2007 to now seeing us way down in attendance, but this team has been around for a while and had a ton of great runs and one of the most colorful franchises in the NBA and playing at Conseco Fieldhouse. We have a lot.

It will get interesting in a few years when Simon is really ready to give up ownership and start listening to interested buyers.

graphic-er
07-01-2011, 08:48 PM
Look there is no way they lost money 10/11 years at Conseco. They are using clever accounting. The Simons contributed over a 100 million to the construction of Conseco, by fronting that money get they to write some of it off every year in depreciation.

I willing to accept that they have technically broke even so far this past decade. The team was very successful up until the year after Reggie retired. So maybe the past 5 seasons they have barely broke even or even lost up to 10-15 million. But through clever accounting with thing like loan interests, debt, tax deductions....they make every year look like a loss.

trailrunner
07-01-2011, 08:54 PM
Maybe I'm just using the wrong word, then.

I thought solvent was a matter of (and I may be abusing this as well) being in the black versus in the red.

I believe that being insolvent means your debts outweigh your assets.

ballism
07-01-2011, 09:13 PM
I don't know what's the precise meaning of the word. I voted yes in the sense that in the long run, I think owning the Pacers is a positive financially even not counting the possible positive effects on your business image -> other businesses.

Even if there are losses in the books (according to Forbes, there are), I'd guess that tax exemptions + increase in Pacers' value outweigh those losses long term.
Of course, everyone can only guess.

Eleazar
07-01-2011, 10:08 PM
Here is what I call mega BS on:

In the 90's when they were selling Conseco to the public, we were told that it was the arena the Simons just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA. MSA was a money failure and the poor poor billionaire Simons would go under if they had to keep playing in it. Conseco was the arena that would save the day and make them money.

Yet they lose money (allegedly) in 10 of the first 11 years of it's existence, including the Finals year?

The Simons are billionaires who built one of the most successful mall businesses in the United States. They are clearly very smart. Yet when the team was at the peak of it's popularity and the city ready to give them anything, they somehow couldn't negotiate a deal that would make them money in a year where:

1) They sold out all 41 games
2) They had the NBA Finals
3) Had massive public interest in the team in the arena.

Yeah, I call mega BS on that. This was the arena they just had to have to remain competitive NBA, yet somehow we're supposed to believe they are so ditzy that they couldn't even negotiate a deal that would make them money when they sold out every game and went to the Finals?

These men had been NBA owners for well over a decade when they were drawing up the Conseco plans, and they knew damn well what it took to make money in this league. Getting Conseco built was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them, and I'm supposed to believe they are so dumb that they couldn't capitalize on this golden opportunity? So dingy that they couldn't even negotiate a deal that would make them money when the arena was brand-spanking new while selling out every game on the way to a Finals run? So dingy that they negotiated a deal where this arena they just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA really ended up losing them money in 10 or 11 years?

Either two things happened:

1) They really did lose money in 10 of 11 years. That means they are bad businessmen if they couldn't capitalize on that golden opportunity they have, but that doesn't make any sense considering they logically should have known damn well what it took to make money in this league. Plus, they are billionaires off of their business success. They aren't fools.

2) They are lying.

What did they buy the Pacers for again? What are they worth now?

I've always thought their tantrum a year ago was because they are, in part, ticked that Irsay made out with an even better deal than them.

The NBA isn't like an ordinary business, there are things you can't control that normal business can because they are operating under the league rules.

It is kind of like Ford or GM knew what it took to make money pre-Honda. Then as the market changed they were still strapped with unions who put them at a competitive disadvantage with companies like Honda. The agreements they made at one point in time worked under those market conditions, but once new market conditions came around the agreements they had to abide by made it difficult for them to compete at a similar level.

I don't know what changes were made during the last CBA negotiations, but those changes could have made it more difficult for the Pacers to make money and stay competitive.

ballism
07-01-2011, 10:23 PM
Off topic, any idea how much the Pacers are losing on that ABA-to-NBA TV agreement, where they have to give part of the TV money to one of the former ABA owners?

Sandman21
07-02-2011, 12:11 AM
Off topic, any idea how much the Pacers are losing on that ABA-to-NBA TV agreement, where they have to give part of the TV money to one of the former ABA owners?

Too much. WAY too much. It'd been nice if Stern had been willing to do the buyout THEIR way (8 mill over 5 years compared to the NBA's 5 over 8 years) back in the 80s instead of being, well, Stern.

For the record, according to Wikipedia, way too much is in the neighborhood of 3.6 million a year.

Pacer Fan
07-02-2011, 12:26 AM
I guess some people would think standard accounting and tax preperations could be cleaver. I see them as standard practices of running a business.

A loss is a loss and Pacers is a loss.

A billionaire pumps capital into the business and it continues to be a loss year after year till the capital has all been paid back.

5 years of huge capital support can take many years and possibly a life time of yearly profits to pay back the capital owed to the invester (Simon), which makes the yearly profit become losses.

For example, One of my businesses that I have invested in with my own money has been showing a loss for many years. It actually profits on most years. But, because there is a capital investment to be paid back, it rarely shows a profit. If the investment was not payable back, then it would be a profitable business.

I have no doubt that the Pacers are in the red as it hasn't supported itself for the past several years, but it is being pumped by an investor to keep it afloat. The true genius of a good investor will not just be on a daily check, but the end result.

(hypothetical numbers here) If Simon had purchased the Pacers for 50 million and Simon owns it for 20 years and during that 20 years he pumped in 200million in capital. Then in the 20 years the Pacers had a net profit of 100million (meaning Simon's capital was paid back in the amount of 250million over the years). Then he sold for 500million, he not only profited the 100miilion over the 20 years, but he just profited 500 million on the sale and had a blast doing it! Of course he would have to pay capital gains tax on the sale. Not a bad investment for a business showing losses for more then 1/2 the time invested. ;)

SycamoreKen
07-02-2011, 12:26 AM
Here is what I call mega BS on:

In the 90's when they were selling Conseco to the public, we were told that it was the arena the Simons just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA. MSA was a money failure and the Simons would go under if they had to keep playing in it. Conseco was the arena that would save the day and make them money.

Yet they lose money (allegedly) in 10 of the first 11 years of it's existence, including the Finals year?

The Simons are billionaires who built one of the most successful mall businesses in the United States. They are clearly very smart. Yet when the team was at the peak of it's popularity and the city ready to give them anything, they somehow couldn't negotiate a deal that would make them money in a year where:

1) They sold out all 41 games
2) They had the NBA Finals
3) Had massive public interest in the team in the arena.

Yeah, I call mega BS on that. This was the arena they just had to have to remain competitive NBA, yet somehow we're supposed to believe they are so ditzy that they couldn't even negotiate a deal that would make them money when they sold out every game and went to the Finals?

These men had been NBA owners for well over a decade when they were drawing up the Conseco plans, and they knew damn well what it took to make money in this league. Getting Conseco built was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them, and I'm supposed to believe they are so dumb that they couldn't capitalize on this golden opportunity? So dingy that they couldn't even negotiate a deal that would make them money when the arena was brand-spanking new while selling out every game on the way to a Finals run? So dingy that they negotiated a deal where this arena they just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA really ended up losing them money in 10 or 11 years?

Either two things happened:

1) They really did lose money in 10 of 11 years. That means they are bad businessmen if they couldn't capitalize on that golden opportunity they have, but that doesn't make any sense considering they logically should have known damn well what it took to make money in this league. Plus, they are billionaires off of their business success. They aren't fools.

2) They are lying.

What did they buy the Pacers for again? What are they worth now?

I've always thought their tantrum a year ago was because they are, in part, ticked that Irsay made out with an even better deal than them.

If a team like the Spurs struggles to make money even witht he success they have had over the last 14 years then i have no doubt that the Pacers probably lost money. The Spurs are the only team in a town with about the same amount of income as Indy, if not a little less. The Pacers have to compete with the Colts for those dollars. Playoff games are bonus money for teams. The lack of those hurts big time.

Scot Pollard
07-02-2011, 12:39 AM
If a team like the Spurs struggles to make money even witht he success they have had over the last 14 years then i have no doubt that the Pacers probably lost money. The Spurs are the only team in a town with about the same amount of income as Indy, if not a little less. The Pacers have to compete with the Colts for those dollars. Playoff games are bonus money for teams. The lack of those hurts big time.

I think both teams should be rooting for each other to win.

It's a pretty positive thing either way whether you're sharing a city with another or multiple teams or it's just you. If you're sharing a city, you should hope for at least one successful team or a team that draws the most interest from fans. Of course hope for that team to be you.

Indianapolis' fanbase and love for the Colts and Pacers changes in a cycle. In 5 years, the Pacers will be Indy's new team again and with Peyton gone and the Colts most likely at the bottom, they will be forgotten kind of like during the Miller days.

Between the Colts and Pacers, they pretty much play off each other.

In the end money goes to the city via CIB.

Like you said about playoff games, they are a bonus and we were lucky to make the playoffs before the lockout to actually have a brightside for fans here once it's all over with and the NBA resumes.

Scot Pollard
07-02-2011, 12:41 AM
Too much. WAY too much. It'd been nice if Stern had been willing to do the buyout THEIR way (8 mill over 5 years compared to the NBA's 5 over 8 years) back in the 80s instead of being, well, Stern.

For the record, according to Wikipedia, way too much is in the neighborhood of 3.6 million a year.

Yeah this **** needs to stop.

The Pacers, Nets, Spurs, and Nuggets are no longer affiliated with the ABA and it's been almost 40 years.

Ownagedood
07-02-2011, 10:54 AM
I would have to say ts obvious that the answer here is no. The city gave the Pacers millions of dollars this past offseason to keep them at Conseco and playing in Indy... We all forget that already? Most teams don't beg their city for money to stay.

Scot Pollard
07-02-2011, 12:17 PM
I would have to say ts obvious that the answer here is no. The city gave the Pacers millions of dollars this past offseason to keep them at Conseco and playing in Indy... We all forget that already? Most teams don't beg their city for money to stay.

Because a lot of franchises are already given millions from the city to stay.

Look, teams don't move in the blink of an eye. Look at the Dodgers and how much trouble they're in, but they aren't leaving.

We have more of an advantage too.

It's been a bumpy ride in the past few years for Simon and he needed money to get keep the franchise going.

We've lost money just like the 22 other franchises out there, but we are in no way in deep ****.

Simon pretty much needed to threaten the CIB he would move, which everyone knew wasn't happening. He actually never wanted to indicate something that wasn't true, but he had to get some help.

I think the whole deal is not a bad thing and it's only for a few more years and the team has a bright future so it helped out during tough times. The Pacers pay them back.

BillS
07-02-2011, 12:21 PM
I would have to say ts obvious that the answer here is no. The city gave the Pacers millions of dollars this past offseason to keep them at Conseco and playing in Indy... We all forget that already? Most teams don't beg their city for money to stay.

*sigh*

First, the city did not give money directly to the Pacers, they took expenses off the Pacers' hands. It may seem to be a nitpick, but it is a huge difference.

Second, in no way are the Indiana Pacers somehow the only team (or even one of a few teams) that ever asked for concessions from their city in order to stay in place or in business.

Scot Pollard
07-02-2011, 05:32 PM
The Pacers are definitely fine.

However what do guys think about the New Orleans Hornets since they're owned by the NBA.

Are they in a bad situation considering the league at first wanted to find someone who will buy and keep them as the NEW ORLEANS Hornets?

At this point, the league can't focus on one individual franchise, but the Hornets are screwed because they don't have an owner?

Is their future in NO in serious doubt once this lockout ends?

Bball
07-02-2011, 05:55 PM
Interesting question...
I'm like Adam and call BS on the 'losing money in 10 out of 11 years' story. But, losing money now? I'd be inclined to say they are but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

The entertainment business, from small town nightclubs to movie studios, all use differing methods to minimize profits or to even creatively (legally or not) show a loss. They all want to make money except on April 15th of every year.

ballism
07-03-2011, 04:58 PM
Too much. WAY too much. It'd been nice if Stern had been willing to do the buyout THEIR way (8 mill over 5 years compared to the NBA's 5 over 8 years) back in the 80s instead of being, well, Stern.

For the record, according to Wikipedia, way too much is in the neighborhood of 3.6 million a year.

I wonder how much it would take now. Probably more than an NBA franchise is worth.
At least if I was the Spirits owner, and NBA came to me and said "here, take the Hornets and forget the TV deal", I would ask for more.

BillS
07-03-2011, 05:53 PM
Interesting question...
I'm like Adam and call BS on the 'losing money in 10 out of 11 years' story. But, losing money now? I'd be inclined to say they are but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

So, here's a question - since we know the Simons kicked in a fair chunk for Conseco, even if it was in the form of not receiving income or cost concessions the team was supposed to get, and we know they were losing money in MSA, at what point does that rather huge chunk of cost/lost income that went toward the Fieldhouse get to be written off against income? Or is it just supposed to be considered magic money and not counted against anything the Pacers earned?

I can definitely see that there could be a loss if it was going to take a certain number of years to earn back the amount paid toward the Fieldhouse - especially since, legally, that amount DOES have to be spread out over a number of years.

It would have taken more sold-out seasons to be able to be in the black once they were finished taking away the Fieldhouse investment.

And, before anyone says that doesn't count because it really means they only lost money in one year, it it wouldn't be very fair to say the franchise is profitable because they made $1-$2 million per year for a couple of years after "losing" (spending) $75 million in the first year.

Hicks
07-03-2011, 11:01 PM
I wonder how much it would take now. Probably more than an NBA franchise is worth.
At least if I was the Spirits owner, and NBA came to me and said "here, take the Hornets and forget the TV deal", I would ask for more.

If I thought for a second there was a "right price" for the Spirit owners, I'd tell the NBA to take the deal, then start charging us year by year what we would have originally been paying those owners, and using that money to pay off however big the amount was the NBA had to fork over to get out of the deal.

Eventually, that's a win.

Sandman21
07-04-2011, 12:34 AM
The one hitch in that is that one of the brothers is in his mid to 70s. The other one is about 10 years younger. I don't know that they'd do it, even if they allowed to move the Hornets to St Louis as part of the deal.

Another issue is that some of that money is flat-out gone. Turns out the Silnas had been investing with Bernie Madoff.

Trophy
07-04-2011, 12:56 AM
Seattle is definitely worthy of the Hornets (if they can't find ownership or help who will keep them in NO). It really sucks big time if you're owned by the league and worse considering it's in a lockout where individual owners have to maintain their respective franchises.

Steve Ballmer in Seattle has had a lot of interest in buying the Hornets.

The big downside is that there's no arena. Unless the Hornets play at Key Arena temporarily since they would have an owner unlike in New Orleans who would try and get them an arena.

That could take years and the Hornets would have new issues to worry about in Seattle considering the New Orleans Arena is fairly new.

Also, it sucks that the Hornets haven't had the type of revenue it should've had since moving to New Orleans. Of course Katrina didn't help at all and not being around for 2 seasons. They should've gotten way more sellouts considering how decent they've been and having a superstar in Chris Paul.

Michael Jordan also talked about if the Hornets were to move to say Seattle and return as the SuperSonics, he'd want to the Bobcats to become the Hornets again and return that legacy back to Charlotte.

Kegboy
07-04-2011, 03:21 PM
Interesting question...
I'm like Adam and call BS on the 'losing money in 10 out of 11 years' story. But, losing money now? I'd be inclined to say they are but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

The entertainment business, from small town nightclubs to movie studios, all use differing methods to minimize profits or to even creatively (legally or not) show a loss. They all want to make money except on April 15th of every year.

QFT

Trader Joe
07-05-2011, 12:15 PM
Well your assets always need to balance with your liabilities. So your question hicks is really more about cash, which IMO, no the Pacers don't, but the Simons do.

Brad8888
07-05-2011, 12:18 PM
One thing we know for sure. They are not the universal solvent.

Sollozzo
07-06-2011, 05:14 PM
One thing I'd like to add is: The Simon's never opened their books did they?

If you're the owners of a team that has bad will with the public and are about to beg for 33 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies, wouldn't the wise thing to do be to prove that you actually did lose money in 10 of 11 years? If you really did lose that money, wouldn't you want to say "here, look!"

Hiding the books when you already are not the most popular thing in town never made much sense to me, well unless of course they really didn't lose money in 10 of 11 years.

BillS
07-06-2011, 06:02 PM
One thing I'd like to add is: The Simon's never opened their books did they?

If you're the owners of a team that has bad will with the public and are about to beg for 33 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies, wouldn't the wise thing to do be to prove that you actually did lose money in 10 of 11 years? If you really did lose that money, wouldn't you want to see "here, look!"

Hiding the books when you already are not the most popular thing in town never made much sense to me, well unless of course they really didn't lose money in 10 of 11 years.

Obviously they opened their books to the NBAPA. The CIB didn't make it a requirement, and why should the Simons open their books when Irsay didn't have to do so to get his extreme sweetheart deal.

The phraseology is also getting ridiculous. There's a far cry of intent from "not opening your books" as a privately held company to "hiding your books" - you going to start hinting they are keeping two sets of books next?

Sollozzo
07-06-2011, 06:56 PM
Obviously they opened their books to the NBAPA. The CIB didn't make it a requirement, and why should the Simons open their books when Irsay didn't have to do so to get his extreme sweetheart deal.

The phraseology is also getting ridiculous. There's a far cry of intent from "not opening your books" as a privately held company to "hiding your books" - you going to start hinting they are keeping two sets of books next?


Legally they might be a "privately" held company, but practically they aren't. No business that gets millions and millions of taxpayer subsidies is a completely "private" company as far as I'm concerned. I and everyone else in Indy have a stake in the Pacers as taxpayers. Maybe not in a NYSE sense, but certainly in a practical one.

I completely get that there was no requirement for them to disclose their books to the public. But when the Simons came begging last year, the Pacers had years and years of bad publicity and low popularity. If I were the owner of a team that was on thin ice with the public, I would at least show the public that I really was losing money when I came begging for 33 million dollars. Why hide the evidence from the public? I understand that they didn't HAVE to show us anything, but that really makes no sense to me if they really were losing money.

Yeah, the Colts didn't show theirs either and I wish they would have. But the Colts have always been extremely pushy when it comes to negotiations. They throw their weight around because they know this town will bend over backward to appease them.

Can someone just answer me this riddle: How in the world did we lose money in 99-00, a year where: 1) We had a brand new stadium that was EXTREMELY hyped 2) We sold out every game 3) We went on a Finals run and 4) were at the absolute peak of our popularity.

How did that happen when Conseco was the arena the Simons just had to have to remain competitive in the NBA? These men have the most successful mall business in the country, and I'm really supposed to believe that they negotiated a deal so poor that they couldn't even make money when they went to the Finals? They had been owners for over 10 years when they Conseco negotiations took place, so they knew darn well what it took to make money in this league and knew that the city would pretty much give them anything. I don't believe they are so dingy that they floundered the once in a lifetime opportunity that was Conseco. They are fools if they couldn't negotiate a deal that made them money in the first year of Conseco.

http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=276&articleID=45941

"The Forbes numbers are substantially low, and the losses are higher than the Capital Improvement Board is talking about," Morris said. "Even during the year [1999-2000] we went to the NBA finals, the Simons lost money. A lot of money."

Well, instead of leaving us all to guess, maybe you could show us the proof and end the speculation?

And a lot of money?! How do you lose "a lot" of money in 1999-2000 when you have a brand new arena and make the Finals? I'm supposed to believe they negotiated that poor of a deal? I'm supposed to believe that men who had been around the league for over a decade couldn't negotiate a deal that would make them money in such positive circumstances? I'm supposed to believe they squandered the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was Conseco *that* badly? They lost money in MSA for years (allegedly), but yet they went ahead and signed up on a deal that lost them money in the first year of a brand new arena? Why did we even build the thing then if all it did was lose money in 10 of 11 years?

If they really did lose money in 99-00, then they will never be successful here.

Sorry, but I think the Indy taxpayer deserves to see the proof that could answer such a perplexing question. We may not be legally entitled to it, but morally I think we are. Saying you lost money in 99-00 is so outlandish that I think you owe it to the public to show them the proof. I'll always think that Irsay making out like a bandit and getting an even better deal than the Simons hurt their ego. Do I have any proof of that? Of course not, but when you don't show the public any proof while demanding millions of their dollars then you open yourself up to that type of guessing. If they showed me and everyone else the evidence then I would zip it. But as of now, I feel confident in saying that the Simons having a bruised ego over the Irsay deal is more likely than them losing money in a brand new hyped arena when they sold out every freaking game and went to the Finals.

Scot Pollard
07-06-2011, 07:10 PM
That sounds impossible.

In 1999-00, the Pacers soldout every single game. We took it all the way.

Up until 2007, we've been up there in the playoffs and the Fieldhouse had been at least 90% full.

Definitely not Indy's fault.

I have a hard time believing the Simons have lost any more money than anyone else in the past few years.

I think it's ****.

You would think they were bankrupt when they say "lost A LOT of money." That's horse ****.

Between 2008-last season you can understand money not being made.

No way during the Reggie days, was this franchise losing money. Impossible. The Pacers were even making this city a ton.

graphic-er
07-06-2011, 07:25 PM
That sounds impossible.

In 1999-00, the Pacers soldout every single game. We took it all the way.

Up until 2007, we've been up there in the playoffs and the Fieldhouse had been at least 90% full.

Definitely not Indy's fault.

I have a hard time believing the Simons have lost any more money than anyone else in the past few years.

I think it's ****.

You would think they were bankrupt when they say "lost A LOT of money." That's horse ****.

Between 2008-last season you can understand money not being made.

No way during the Reggie days, was this franchise losing money. Impossible. The Pacers were even making this city a ton.

I agree, if they lost money in 99-00 season its because of the initial investment costs for setting up shop in conseco, but its an investment. I'm sure they have been writing off that alot of that over the last 10 years in depreciation. So I think it ends up in a wash.

Simon's are smart business men, there is no way they helped finance a new stadium and set up a 30 year deal without setting up a good business plan.