PDA

View Full Version : Indy's non-pursuit of NBA all-star game remains mystery



90'sNBARocked
02-05-2013, 06:38 PM
http://www.ibj.com/the-score-2013-02-05-indys-non-pursuit-of-nba-all-star-game-remains-mystery/PARAMS/post/39457


The lease agreement the Indiana Pacers and Capital Improvement Board finalized in 1999 for the newly built Conseco Fieldhouse could not have been clearer.

Both sides badly wanted to land an NBA All-Star Game. It is right there in the lease between the Pacers and CIB that locals would go after this high-profile event.

So what happened?

After reading a column penned by IBJ Managing Editor Greg Andrews for this week’s print edition, the answer to that question is as mystifying and elusive as ever. And I’ve covered the business of sports here at IBJ for nearly 15 years.

The last serious effort to net the NBA All-Star Game was spearheaded by Don Welsh when he was president of the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association (now Visit Indy). In 2010, he led a recon mission to Dallas—that year’s host city—to see what it would take for Indianapolis to host the glitzy event.

Welsh’s effort, for unknown reasons, went cold quickly. Then Welsh departed for Chicago the following year and the effort has not been revived.

Fourteen years after the Pacers-CIB agreement for the Fieldhouse, the 1985 NBA All-Star Game, held at the newly built Hoosier Dome, remains the only all-star game the league has held in this city—a curious omission given Indianapolis’ propensity for landing big-time events.

Odder still, no one locally can give a good reason why Indianapolis hasn’t landed the game or isn’t going after it.

The NBA’s All-Star Weekend starts Friday and features a variety of events, including slam-dunk and three-point-shooting contests, leading up to Sunday’s game. A study commissioned by the Orlando Magic found that last year’s festivities in Orlando had an economic impact of $95 million, including $56 million in direct spending.

An estimated 37,000 visitors from outside the county spent an average of $1,020 during their visits, and NBA players alone dropped $440,000, according to the study.

Those are big numbers. And big numbers need to be put in perspective. Direct visitor spending for the 2012 Super Bowl in Indianapolis was $175 million, according to a study commissioned by the local host committee. A Final Four delivers $40 million in direct visitor spending to Indianapolis, according to Visit Indy.

Did you catch that? An NBA All-Star Game could deliver $16 million more in direct visitor spending than a Final Four.

Visit Indy and CIB officials seem to be at a loss for why this event hasn’t been pursued more aggressively. Pacers President Jim Morris said the Pacers would love to host it, but Bankers Life Fieldhouse’s schedule is simply packed.

Really? Too crowded for an event with this type of economic impact?

Apparently, it’s not just the Fieldhouse schedule that’s crowded.

“Sometimes, even when we might be available, hotel rooms might not be available” because of sporting events or conventions held elsewhere downtown," said Rick Fuson, the Pacers chief operating officer.

I’m guessing that’s a problem Welsh’s replacement at Visit Indy, Leonard Hoops, would like to wrestle with. February isn’t one of Indianapolis’ busiest convention months.

Despite competition from other cities, if Indianapolis throws its hat in the ring, it surely will be able to work its way into the hosting schedule, said David Morton, president of locally based Sunrise Sports Group. He sees Lucas Oil Stadium, which proved its mettle as a basketball venue when it staged the 2010 NCAA men’s Final Four, as the ideal location.
The NBA has gone both big and small with past venues. The 2010 game was in Cowboys Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys, while this year’s game is at Toyota Center, home of the Houston Rockets.

There’s one consideration Pacers officials aren’t likely to address publicly. In recent years, some NBA all-star games have been marred by violence and other mayhem. So the security costs would be considerable.

But this seems surmountable for a city that has become known as one of the most creative nationwide for hosting sporting events.

Fuson—who as a new Pacers employee helped ready the Hoosier Dome for the 1985 game—fondly recalls that event. He said larger isn’t necessarily better. He called Bankers Life Fieldhouse the best basketball venue in the country. And he said its appeal has only grown with the installation this season of a massive high-definition scoreboard.

“Our new scoreboard makes a significant difference about the NBA wanting to be there, too,” Fuson said.

So again, I ask, what are we waiting on?

rabid
02-05-2013, 06:47 PM
I can't find the links but I thought sources within the Pacers have said previously that the All-Star Game is a logistical nightmare and more trouble than it's worth financially.

boombaby1987
02-05-2013, 06:48 PM
I can't find the links but I thought sources within the Pacers have said previously that the All-Star Game is a logistical nightmare and more trouble than it's worth financially.

Maybe for the Pacers, but not for the city. That is a stupid excuses. The City obviously benefits.

ChicagoJ
02-05-2013, 06:51 PM
I can't find the links but I thought sources within the Pacers have said previously that the All-Star Game is a logistical nightmare and more trouble than it's worth financially.


Yes.

One of their biggest concerns was that it is a big in-season distraction for the front office.

Also, I'm not sure I buy the 37,000 out-of-town visitors argument for an NBA all-star game. That doesn't seem right at all. More than 2x the number of people that will get into the arena travel from out of town for the NBA all-star game?

(Was another of Donnie's concerns about the ASG the relatively low number of tickets available to the ST holders? I think that's right... a lot of work and then you turn away your paying customers that are interested in the game. 5,000 tickets for the home team to sell to its ST holders is the number I seem to recall.)

boombaby1987
02-05-2013, 06:58 PM
"In Season" distractions for the front office is not a sufficient reason to turn down millions of dollars. After all the money the city has given then the Pacers, the least they can do is bring an all star game here.

Sollozzo
02-05-2013, 07:00 PM
Also, I'm not sure I buy the 37,000 out-of-town visitors argument for an NBA all-star game. That doesn't seem right at all. More than 2x the number of people that will get into the arena travel from out of town for the NBA all-star game?

I bet that here they'd have it at Lucas Oil instead of BLF, just like they had it at the Dome instead of MSA.

boombaby1987
02-05-2013, 07:05 PM
People would definitely travel from Chicago I am sure of it. 37000 does not sound far off to me at all.

Bball
02-05-2013, 07:16 PM
Well, this is interesting... Donnie Walsh has definitely been quoted as basically saying they weren't interested in the All Star game. ...But yet it's in the lease???

With BLF and Lucas, plus the city's reputation for hosting marquee sporting events, it's hard to imagine not landing the event... if they were trying. I feel confident the city would love having the event. I'm not sure I buy the excuses of TPTB but what makes this all interesting is that pursuing the ASG is part of the lease agreement. So basically, TPTB makes a token effort to satisfy the agreement while not actually pursuing the event at all for questionable reasons.

SycamoreKen
02-05-2013, 07:18 PM
The Spurs do not pursue them either, mostly because of the cost to the team and the above noted extra work.

J7F
02-05-2013, 07:21 PM
I can't find the links but I thought sources within the Pacers have said previously that the All-Star Game is a logistical nightmare and more trouble than it's worth financially.
That is what I was told from people in the know that work at BLF when I had my job rotating the ads on the scorers tables...

Sollozzo
02-05-2013, 07:23 PM
I can't find the links but I thought sources within the Pacers have said previously that the All-Star Game is a logistical nightmare and more trouble than it's worth financially.


I don't see how it could be any more of a nightmare than the Super Bowl, Final Fours, Indy 500, Big Ten Football and Basketball Championships, or marquee Colts/Pacers playoff games.......all of which the city has hosted masterfully.

ChicagoJ
02-05-2013, 07:24 PM
Hmmmm... Chicago hasn't hosted it since '88, which means its never been in The UC.

Wouldn't you think they'd rather host it than admit that yet again Indianapolis is better at hosting large sporting events than they are. They're still stinging over the Big Ten football championship.

I also don't buy the dome stadium idea. The ASG has been in two domed stadiums since playing in the Astrodome in 1989 - the Alamodome and Cowboys Stadium. They've been back to Houston twice (including this year) and played in the Toyota Center.

I think if the ASG ever comes back (and I wouldn't count on it), it will be at the Fieldhouse.

J7F
02-05-2013, 07:25 PM
I don't see how it could be any more of a nightmare than the Super Bowl, Final Fours, Indy 500, Big Ten Football and Basketball Championships, or marquee Colts/Pacers playoff games.......all of which the city has hosted masterfully.It's not the city... It's BLF that doesn't want to host it...

Sollozzo
02-05-2013, 07:26 PM
It's not the city... It's BLF that doesn't want to host it...

Right. I'm just saying that I fail to see the "nightmare" aspect to it.

ChicagoJ
02-05-2013, 07:37 PM
I don't see how it could be any more of a nightmare than the Super Bowl, Final Fours, Indy 500, Big Ten Football and Basketball Championships, or marquee Colts/Pacers playoff games.......all of which the city has hosted masterfully.

Most of which are administered by ISC. Would they handle this, or would it be PS&E?

Did the Colts front office plan the Super Bowl activities? I think there was a SB committee but could be wrong.

The Final Fours and Big Ten events aren't really administered by any of the teams. And while those are big games they aren't weekend-long events with numerous other activities beyond the main attraction.

The city gets an economic boom, but unlike the Colts/ Pacers playoff games, the team doesn't really see any economic benefit. It is a lot of cost and time during the middle of the season with no upside. If you were a business owner, how much would you spend to distract your front office while somebody else benefits?

Bball
02-05-2013, 07:40 PM
There was a Super Bowl Committee...

Heisenberg
02-05-2013, 07:42 PM
Well, if a study commissioned by the Magic says something the Magic did is good for Orlando....

Bball
02-05-2013, 07:43 PM
The fly in the ointment is learning pursuit of the ASG is part of the lease.... And of course you have to know the city wants the event.

Since PS&E has their hand out for tax money it gets a little trickier to just not truly pursue the ASG when the above is considered. IMHO....

Smoothdave1
02-05-2013, 07:55 PM
From the Pacers perspective, there's not really much of a benefit directly for them as they have to utilize their resources, staff, etc. to assist in planning and executing an event. However, for the City of Indianapolis and State of Indiana, there's a lot to be gained from direct spending. I'd love to see the game held at Lucas Oil. I think you could appease the season ticket holders, corporate sponsors and NBA officials. Not to mention the fact that 2/3 of the US population lives within a day's drive of Indy and they're centrally located and would likely attract a lot of out-of-town visitors from areas such as Chicago, Milwaukee, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincy, St. Louis, Louisville, Nashville, Detroit, etc. that could all help fill LOS. I would not be surprised to see Indy host another ASG as I think we would provide everything that the NBA is seeking and have lots of experience hosting larger events.

ChicagoJ
02-05-2013, 08:10 PM
The fly in the ointment is learning pursuit of the ASG is part of the lease.... And of course you have to know the city wants the event.

Since PS&E has their hand out for tax money it gets a little trickier to just not truly pursue the ASG when the above is considered. IMHO....

I agree. But they could be tossing their name in every couple of years and getting rejected early on, too. The question is "how vigorous" should they be from a business perspetive?

They're losing money like crazy, and the financial windfall being discussed does not result in much money going to the Pacers.

How do NBA teams split the gate at the ASG? Does anybody know?

My bigger concern is that I just find the numbers being tossed about to be illogical.

If there are really 37,000 out of town visitors (which I find dubious, but okay), spending $1000 each, let's assume that is an average of $200 for a ticket (not sure how that is allocated), $300 for a hotel for the weekend, (doesn't go to the team, depending on the hotel may work its way into the city's economy so I'll include it), $300 for flight (doesn't go to the team, goes to the airline and probably gets worked into the Dallas (AA, SW), Atlanta (DL, AT), Chicago (UA), or Phoenix (US) economies, and $300 on suveniers, meals, etc. I get $20-some million total, or about half of a Final Four. And that makes a lot more sense.

Here are more details on the economic study of the ASG to LA:

http://www.micronomics.com/articles/NBA.pdf

There's some fuzzy, or at best inexact math involved, as you can see in Table #2. They estimate a hotel room premium, assume that applied to all the hotel traffic for a six-day period (which seems like a long period of time for a large number of hotel rooms), assume that all of the lodging revenue stays in the local economy (not a good assumption at all, except for locally-owned hotels. Do you think the Marriotts and Starwoods and Hyatts and Hiltons of the world keep all their net profits in the local markets? No, that cash finds it way to either the corporate or franchisee's bank account pretty quickly), and then assume that 29% of all spending is lodging and gross it up from there.

Total attendance at all LA-area ASG events was 100,000. A large portion of that was the same 22,000 people going to more than one event (All-Star Saturday, the game itself, etc.) Not 100,000 unique out of town visitors.

Bball
02-06-2013, 12:04 AM
But also wouldn't the ASG generate corporate spending on large parties and the like which makes people in the entertainment and event industries happy?

Day-V
02-06-2013, 12:55 AM
It'll never happen, guys. If the city wants it, then they'll have to have it at Lucas Oil. The Pacers have no desire whatsoever for an ASW.

Roaming Gnome
02-06-2013, 12:57 AM
Screw the idea of having it at Lucas Oil because of the masterful lease Jim Irsay & the CIB worked out where 1/2 of the gate from the ASG would go directly into Irsay's pocket. Remember, he gets 1/2 from Marching Bands to Monster Trucks and everything in-between! As a STH on the thought of PS&E hosting an ASG here in Indy... Not interested! If the Convention & Visitors Bureau wants to front all the money for it and man it like they did for the Super Bowl.... Go right ahead... Maybe the ISC & ICVB can use Lucas Oil and line Jim Irsay's pocket!

Bball
02-06-2013, 01:34 AM
It'll never happen, guys. If the city wants it, then they'll have to have it at Lucas Oil. The Pacers have no desire whatsoever for an ASW.

I don't doubt that at all.

I'm just surprised the issue is part of the lease agreement. Seems like a little bad faith bargaining on the part of PS&E.

Bball
02-06-2013, 01:36 AM
Screw the idea of having it at Lucas Oil because of the masterful lease Jim Irsay & the CIB worked out where 1/2 of the gate from the ASG would go directly into Irsay's pocket. Remember, he gets 1/2 from Marching Bands to Monster Trucks and everything in-between! As a STH on the thought of PS&E hosting an ASG here in Indy... Not interested! If the Convention & Visitors Bureau wants to front all the money for it and man it like they did for the Super Bowl.... Go right ahead... Maybe the ISC & ICVB can use Lucas Oil and line Jim Irsay's pocket!

I've lost track... what does PS&E get? I thought their cut was 100% (of anything in BLF)?

Brad8888
02-06-2013, 01:56 AM
Maybe if the league could take the albatross of the old St. Louis Spirits TV money contract off their backs, the Pacers and Indianapolis CIB could afford to host it.

Sollozzo
02-06-2013, 09:42 AM
Hmmmm... Chicago hasn't hosted it since '88, which means its never been in The UC.

Wouldn't you think they'd rather host it than admit that yet again Indianapolis is better at hosting large sporting events than they are. They're still stinging over the Big Ten football championship.

I also don't buy the dome stadium idea. The ASG has been in two domed stadiums since playing in the Astrodome in 1989 - the Alamodome and Cowboys Stadium. They've been back to Houston twice (including this year) and played in the Toyota Center.

I think if the ASG ever comes back (and I wouldn't count on it), it will be at the Fieldhouse.

Good point about Houston putting it at Toyota instead of Reliant. Also, Phoenix hosted it at USAir instead of Glendale, and New Orleans had it at New Orleans Arena instead of the Super Dome. I suppose that Cowboys Stadium hosting it planted the Lucas idea in my head, as well as the fact that it was at the Hoosier Dome instead of MSA in 1985. I do think there would be a push to have it at Lucas, but it's pure guessing on my part.

Mac_Daddy
02-06-2013, 09:46 AM
I can't find the links but I thought sources within the Pacers have said previously that the All-Star Game is a logistical nightmare and more trouble than it's worth financially.

I think this is a fairly outdated notion. We regularly host Final Fours and we've now hosted a Super Bowl. It may be a logistical nightmare, but Indianapolis is one of the top cities in the nation in terms of logistics, period.

I just think the cost of it is more of the issue. Maybe I'm the odd one out, but besides seeing one of our guys labeled as an All Star, I couldn't give a damn about the game or the weekend.

Unclebuck
02-06-2013, 09:58 AM
A lot of people come to the site of the ASG, but don't go to the actual game. So the 37,000 figure sounds about right in fact that might be low.

Two things: pacers franchise would lose money on the hosting of the allstar game and DW has said that very few season ticket holders would be able to go. In the 18K BLF, probably around 1,000 regular season ticket holders -

If the pacers had wanted it, they would have hosted it by now. There was a time when the NBA would award the ASG to cities with new arenas, if they wanted it.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 10:04 AM
I'm all for an ASG. I know I wouldn't go to the game, but I would love to attend some of the activities that lead up to the game.

Foul on Smits
02-06-2013, 10:08 AM
People would definitely travel from Chicago I am sure of it. 37000 does not sound far off to me at all.

is this good?

boombaby1987
02-06-2013, 11:25 AM
is this good?

Yes of course. It's not like it is a regular season game or playoff game or anything.

Chicago Money works the same way.

BRushWithDeath
02-06-2013, 11:29 AM
I can understand why the Pacers wouldn't be in favor of it but if the Orlando numbers are even half right, the organization owes it to the city to bite the bullet.

clownskull
02-06-2013, 11:34 AM
i'm sure there are other out there who know a good deal more about this etc. however, like others mentioned what walsh said years ago- i just don't think it is really worth the hassle for the ownership.
i know some have mentioned the final fours etc. but those are at lucas where irsay gets most if not all the dough. simon is definitely not going to be cool with that and i don't blame him so l.o.s. would be completely out of the question. not to mention big stadiums like that are simply the absolute worst venues for basketball. i have been to multiple games at the Hoosier dome and it was always a horrible venue to see a basketball game.
and as far as i know, the hosting team is responsible for putting everything together cover the expenses. i don't know how the ncaa works those final fours but it is probably worked out differently than that as the participating teams don't cover the cost of running the whole show.
for big market teams, i can see how it might not be such a big deal. the lakers and knicks etc. can afford to waste millions all the time as they often do.
i just don't think the actual team gets very much to make it worth it and they should be adequately compensated for the hassle.

BRushWithDeath
02-06-2013, 11:39 AM
i'm sure there are other out there who know a good deal more about this etc. however, like others mentioned what walsh said years ago- i just don't think it is really worth the hassle for the ownership.
i know some have mentioned the final fours etc. but those are at lucas where irsay gets most if not all the dough. simon is definitely not going to be cool with that and i don't blame him so l.o.s. would be completely out of the question. not to mention big stadiums like that are simply the absolute worst venues for basketball. i have been to multiple games at the Hoosier dome and it was always a horrible venue to see a basketball game.
and as far as i know, the hosting team is responsible for putting everything together cover the expenses. i don't know how the ncaa works those final fours but it is probably worked out differently than that as the participating teams don't cover the cost of running the whole show.
for big market teams, i can see how it might not be such a big deal. the lakers and knicks etc. can afford to waste millions all the time as they often do.
i just don't think the actual team gets very much to make it worth it and they should be adequately compensated for the hassle.

Against the point of the thread but there is no comparison between basketball at the Hoosier Dome and basketball at Lucas Oil. It is light years better. Sure, a huge stadium like that isn't as ideal a fan setting as Bankers Life, but it is far better than the past basketball games played in football stadiums.

boombaby1987
02-06-2013, 11:42 AM
I said it once and I'll say it again. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT KIND OF HASSLE IT CAUSES FOR THE OWNERSHIP! You owe the city an All-Star Game and it is in the lease. Apparently, they are just trying to ignore it and hope the city forgets about it. A hassle is not an acceptable reason to turn away a big event for the city. It seems like some of you are trying to defend the teams reasoning and I just don't understand how. No NBA team is given the kind of monetary support in multiple facets then the Pacers get from the city of Indianapolis.

clownskull
02-06-2013, 12:02 PM
well, if it is in the lease, then i suppose they should just do it once to get it out of the way. i might tune in to catch the 3 point contest. beyond that- meh.

Eindar
02-06-2013, 12:21 PM
Beyond the hassle for the front office of hosting the ASG at BLF, and even given that PS&E could lose some money on the venture, for a franchise that has mostly lost the interest of the local fan base, wouldn't it be a good idea to host All-Star weekend to try to drum up interest in the NBA in Indiana, and by proxy, the Pacers? Seems like if you had all the media and locals talking about All-Star Weekend, the fact that the Pacers are good guys who happen to be third in the Eastern Conference would work its way into the conversation.

RWB
02-06-2013, 12:24 PM
Two things: pacers franchise would lose money on the hosting of the allstar game and DW has said that very few season ticket holders would be able to go. In the 18K BLF, probably around 1,000 regular season ticket holders -


See I don't get this. A season ticket holder does indeed pay to see the Pacers in BLF, but why exactly should it be their right to have dibs on tickets to the All Star game? Maybe I'm missing something here. Does STHs have first dibs on tickets to concerts like Kenny Chesney or U2 who perform in BLF because the Pacers play there?

Sollozzo
02-06-2013, 12:25 PM
Beyond the hassle for the front office of hosting the ASG at BLF, and even given that PS&E could lose some money on the venture, for a franchise that has mostly lost the interest of the local fan base, wouldn't it be a good idea to host All-Star weekend to try to drum up interest in the NBA in Indiana, and by proxy, the Pacers? Seems like if you had all the media and locals talking about All-Star Weekend, the fact that the Pacers are good guys who happen to be third in the Eastern Conference would work its way into the conversation.


Yeah, I can't think of a better way to gin up some interest in the NBA than by bringing in the biggest name NBA players to put on a show for the weekend. It would bring in thousands of people and I have a feeling that a lot of locals would flock downtown to get in on the party. It wouldn't be anything like the Super Bowl, but there would definitely be a lot of people in bars and restaurants. It seems to me that the Pacers could piggy back off of the hype the game would bring in.

Seems to me like it's mostly pure laziness on the part of the Pacers. Personally, I think they owe it to the community to try since the community has given them millions and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars.

ChicagoJ
02-06-2013, 01:34 PM
Yes of course. It's not like it is a regular season game or playoff game or anything.

Chicago Money works the same way.

You're assuming Chicago money is interested in the ASG.

There's probably a contingent of Chicago money that travels to every ASG. Friends and family of Chicago-based players around the league. And they aren't looking forward to a short drive to Indy. They want to go someplace warm.

In my gym in the Loop the other night, not a single TV was tuned to the Bulls-Pacers games. College games were one, Headline news was on. But not an NBA game. This is not an NBA town. The bar in the train station had the game on as I walked past, but not a single person was in there.

They sell out the UC because its a huge population market and a relatively small arena. Keep in mind that in a MSA of 9.5 million people, Soldier Field is relatively smaller (by ratio of population to capacity) than the Fieldhouse is.

Chicago
9.5 million people
The UC capacity about 21,500
Soldier Field capacity about 61,500

Soldier Field has one seat for every 154 people in the Chicago metro area.
The Fieldhouse has one seat for every 98 people in the Indy metro area.
The UC has one seat for every 440 people in the Chicago metro area.

If The UC were as relatively big in this market as the Fieldhouse is in the Indy market, it would have a capacity of 96,000. They'd clearly never sell that out for an NBA game, although they'd certainly have it between 1/3 and 1/2 full for high profile games. And between 1/4 and 1/3 full for the rest of the games.

The interest in professional basketball in the Chicago market is always overstated. Yes, there is a contingent of Bulls fans, and they do fill up their small (by population size) arena. But this isn't like NYC where everybody is interested in and talking about the Knicks, even when they're bad.

ChicagoJ
02-06-2013, 01:38 PM
See I don't get this. A season ticket holder does indeed pay to see the Pacers in BLF, but why exactly should it be their right to have dibs on tickets to the All Star game? Maybe I'm missing something here. Does STHs have first dibs on tickets to concerts like Kenny Chesney or U2 who perform in BLF because the Pacers play there?


Suite holders? Yes, absolutely.

I know we get pre-sale announcements at work for events in The UC for the company's tickets.

The idea here is that the Pacers aren't crazy about doing all that work so that somebody else takes all the profits - especially if their most loyal customers can't even get in to the event.

This is obviously a blurry line because the Pacers are being supported by public money, but they are at their core a for-profit business trying to maximize profits (or minimize losses).

Bball has hit the nail on the head. I'm amazed this is in the contract between the team and the CIB. Because the business reasons for why the Pacers don't want to pursue the ASG again are pretty easy to understand.

vapacersfan
02-06-2013, 01:43 PM
See I don't get this. A season ticket holder does indeed pay to see the Pacers in BLF, but why exactly should it be their right to have dibs on tickets to the All Star game? Maybe I'm missing something here. Does STHs have first dibs on tickets to concerts like Kenny Chesney or U2 who perform in BLF because the Pacers play there?

I am no longer a STH, but Redskins fans were offered all kinds of pre-sales to concerts/games at old RFK or now FEDEX.

Now if you want to argue that is not a right.......that is a diffrent story. But we get "dibs" if you will. on many things...one of the perks of being a STH

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 02:32 PM
I don't really care if we get it personally, but there is no reason we shouldn't go after it as a franchise/city.

BillS
02-06-2013, 10:35 PM
Question - why is Irsay a hero over the Super Bowl when the city spent all the money and did all the work, but Simon is a bum when PS&E would have to spend all the money and do all the work?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Trader Joe
02-07-2013, 01:18 AM
Question - why is Irsay a hero over the Super Bowl when the city spent all the money and did all the work, but Simon is a bum when PS&E would have to spend all the money and do all the work?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

That's a slight over simplification of the work Irsay put in to sell the city the NFL powers that be. Make no mistake your city does not get a super bowl if the other owners don't want you to. Jimmy definitely had to do some heavy lifting on that deal.

Roaming Gnome
02-07-2013, 10:32 AM
I've lost track... what does PS&E get? I thought their cut was 100% (of anything in BLF)?

No! Very far from it... If PS&E got 100% of all non NBA events, there wouldn't have been the shock in the Lucas Oil deal. There are events that happen at BLF where PS&E don't get proceeds like at Lucas Oil.

The 50% of everything that goes through Lucas Oil Stadium to Colts owner Jim Irsay was a very unique deal that caught A LOT of attention when the deal was made public.


That's a slight over simplification of the work Irsay put in to sell the city the NFL powers that be. Make no mistake your city does not get a super bowl if the other owners don't want you to. Jimmy definitely had to do some heavy lifting on that deal.

It sure is a lot easier to buy the groceries when someone else is standing at the register writing the check!

Trader Joe
02-07-2013, 10:43 AM
It sure is a lot easier to buy the groceries when someone else is standing at the register writing the check!

Come on Gnome do you honestly think that is how it went down? Can't believe I'm going to stick up for Irsay, but the simple fact is, Indy would not have the Super Bowl last year without him. Period.

BillS
02-07-2013, 01:00 PM
Come on Gnome do you honestly think that is how it went down? Can't believe I'm going to stick up for Irsay, but the simple fact is, Indy would not have the Super Bowl last year without him. Period.

In that case why did the city have to spend so much money?

The comparison is in the amount the franchise/owner has to spend compared to the amount the city has to spend. The expectation is that the city funds the Super Bowl bid but that the team funds the NBA All Star bid. Irsay can certainly be free with his own time and sales efforts when he isn't spending the multi million $ to fund the staff and activities for the bid, the preparations, and the event. PS&E would be on the hook for all those costs for the All Star game.

MyFavMartin
02-07-2013, 01:19 PM
See I don't get this. A season ticket holder does indeed pay to see the Pacers in BLF, but why exactly should it be their right to have dibs on tickets to the All Star game? Maybe I'm missing something here. Does STHs have first dibs on tickets to concerts like Kenny Chesney or U2 who perform in BLF because the Pacers play there?

Just package an All-Star ticket with the premium ST packages for that year and bump the costs for that year. Also, give the option of selling back the All-Star ticket back to the Pacers at a lesser cost, so they can sell them to people who actually want to go, while giving your ST holders first chance.

BillS
02-07-2013, 02:51 PM
Just package an All-Star ticket with the premium ST packages for that year and bump the costs for that year. Also, give the option of selling back the All-Star ticket back to the Pacers at a lesser cost, so they can sell them to people who actually want to go, while giving your ST holders first chance.

That'd be fine if you only had 1000 STHs.

ChicagoJ
02-07-2013, 03:01 PM
Just package an All-Star ticket with the premium ST packages for that year and bump the costs for that year. Also, give the option of selling back the All-Star ticket back to the Pacers at a lesser cost, so they can sell them to people who actually want to go, while giving your ST holders first chance.


But I believe the league dictates the distribution of ASG tickets. A very small amount will go to ST holders. 1,000? 5,000? Not many. To the host franchise, their revenue is better than just one of 45 regular/ pre- season games. Its probably similar the revenue increase of an NBA Finals game. If the average price (and this would include balcony level tickets) is slighlty above $100/ ticket, its $2million in incremental revenue to the franchise itself. (Assuming 100% of the gate goes to the host franchise, this may actually be a shared/ allocated revenue item among the league and teams...) But with a lot more cost involved than just another one of the 45 games reguarly-scheduled games.

Roaming Gnome
02-07-2013, 10:05 PM
Come on Gnome do you honestly think that is how it went down? Can't believe I'm going to stick up for Irsay, but the simple fact is, Indy would not have the Super Bowl last year without him. Period.

OK, I was wielding the sword of hyperbole a bit, but in reality I truly believe its more along the lines of what BillS has mentioned in proportionate cost to owner. I'm sure Irsay and staff did help and even shell out quite a bit of coin however I don't think it is in line with what PS&E would have to bankroll to have the ASG here.

Bball
02-08-2013, 11:42 PM
No! Very far from it... If PS&E got 100% of all non NBA events, there wouldn't have been the shock in the Lucas Oil deal. There are events that happen at BLF where PS&E don't get proceeds like at Lucas Oil.

The 50% of everything that goes through Lucas Oil Stadium to Colts owner Jim Irsay was a very unique deal that caught A LOT of attention when the deal was made public.


What am I missing in this?


The Indiana Pacers’ owner has been running the 18,165-seat basketball arena since it opened in 1999 and keeps all the revenue from its myriad events. In 2010, CIB agreed to provide PS&E $3.5 million for building improvements, plus $10 million a year for three years to offset the cost of operations.

http://www.ibj.com/article/print?articleId=38637

Bball
02-09-2013, 12:08 AM
I'm thinking the gist of things were PS&E got 100% of the profits for any events in PS&E (and total control over the venue) BUT had to pay operating expenses.

Then, when Lucas came along the deal they got included CIB paying all the operating costs (but I was thinking Lucas/Irsay did NOT get 100% of the profits from things in Lucas besides the NFL).

At which point, connected or not.. Simon balked at paying operating costs for Indian...errr Conse... errr BLF. Meanwhile, operating costs at Lucas turned out to be more than had been estimated.

I'm almost 100% certain PS&E has 100% control of the BLF building and profits (and the above posted snippet seems to confirm).

I'm fuzzier on the Lucas deal but I'm pretty sure Irsay doesn't get 100% of profits (outside of NFL events).....

Can anyone confirm before Gnome shoots me? ;)