Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

    SPOILER ALERT - The Indiana Pacers are staying in Indiana,and if I am wrong I will eat my keyboard.
    I am by no means suggesting that the blue and gold will continue to be retained by the Simon’s. However, I am confident that the Indiana Pacers will remain focal occupants of the Conseco Fieldhouse.


    Why can I exert such blatant confidence?


    It is simply not possible given the current “arid” economic climate and geographical desire for a professional basketball team.
    [1] The economic climate of North America is dry – no wait “arid.” Given the economic climate of half of the globe a move is very risky. While many billionaires might have an interest in a Simon short sale, I am confident that 99.9% of interested buyers would not want to risk moving the team to a new environment. [2] Furthermore, a suitable, fertile environment does not exist. Even if the Simons or a “buyer” decided expressed interest in a move, they would find that there are few places in the United States, Canada, or Mexico that could potentially receive and support an NBA franchise.


    THE UNITED STATES


    [1] Seattle, Washington. The Super Sonics moved, and now the fans of every slumping franchise with an expiring or near-expiring lease are in panic. Seattle would certainly love to regain an NBA franchise, but at what cost? The soul reason the NBA’s late elder son became the league's newest baby was because of a dispute over stadium conditions. The owners of the Super Sonics thought that Key Arena was a sub par professional stadium. While many agree, the city decided they would not invest the money needed to build a new arena. To complicate matters for the Sonics, the city also stated that they would not renovate Key Arena, unless the Sonics made significant finacial contributions.


    Obviously Seattle wants a pro-team, just not the pro-price tag. Therefore if the Pacers are hemorrhaging money, why would they move to a city that would refuse to stop the bleeding? The Pacers need cash, and Seattle is not going to accommodate any team with a handout.


    [2] Las Vegas, Nevada. After the 07’ All Star Game, it appeared that Sin City was the heir apparent for an NBA franchise. However, before you place your bet on a Pacers move to Vegas, consider the following. The city of Las Vegas may not be as ripe as Stern and Co. once anticipated. After several months of research, the city of Las Vegas concluded the creation of a new arena was not a sure thing. To complicate matters worst, the city does not have an existing arena capable of hosting a pro-team while a new stadium is built. Therefore, a stadium would have to be constructed before Vegas could welcome an NBA franchise.


    While Vegas seems like a great opportunity for an NBA expansion or relocation, a Pacers move to the desert seems like a long shot. After all, the city of Los Vegas is at least 4 -5 years from a suitable arena.


    [3] Baltimore, Maryland. I once heard that Baltimore was interested in a NBA franchise. However, studies were conducted and apparently a pro-team would not generate a large following.


    Baltimore is a great football town, but it is not a basketball town. The Pacers will not be leaving from Indianapolis to Baltimore on a Mayflower semi any day soon.


    CANADA


    [1] Vancouver, Canada. This is by no means an insult to any users who live or have lived in Canada. However, Canada is not a possible location. I loosely quote Stevie “Franchise” Francis, players don’t want to play in Canada because of “Location, taxes, endorsements, and the will of God.” This is proven by the exoduses of stars such as Damon Stoudemire, Marcus Camby, Vince Carter, and Tracy McGrady.


    Canada, particularly Vancouver, has proven to be a failed experiment. The Pacers, or any potential buyers would not want to subject itself to the trials and tribulations of a Canadian based team.


    MEXICO


    [1] Mexico City, Mexico. Language barriers, drug wars, and swine flu. Need I say more?


    It appears that there isn’t a city or country that could suit the Indiana Pacers better than, you guessed it, Indiana. I believe the Pacers will remain in Indiana. I also believe that the Pacers best opportunity for success is in Indiana. No one buys a professional sports team with expectation that it will make significant money, and the Pacers are a playoff run and a descent marketing campaign from becoming sustainable.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    With that being said, I hope the city of Indianapolis shows favor to the Indiana Pacers. (This is the part where I get personal). I have been a Pacers fan and a Colts fan since the day I was born. However, the way that Jim Irsay took advantage of the city with L.O.S. was simply nothing short of sinister. Either the Pacers need to be given a similar deal (within reason), or Irsay needs to renegotiate some of the benefits he received on a stadium that was burdened by tax payers and is directly affecting other sports teams.


    We the fans of the Indiana Pacers need to be proactive about promoting and marketing this team. Indiana is the best possible location for the Indiana Pacers, and there is no doubt that we can help the organization and the state realize that once again. >>
    Last edited by 1984; 04-30-2009, 11:53 PM. Reason: format

  • #2
    Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

    Im Canadian, and honestly, Vancouver is not a good location for the Pacers, they will continue to lose more money. Players (especially All Stars) will not want to play for their city. Prime example, Francis. He made it clear that the Gizz should not draft him because he wont play for them.

    I know someone is going to mention, "Toronto Raps are doing financially well and theyre a Canadian team". Yes thats true, but Toronto is a much bigger, more populated metropolitan city, which Vancouver is not.
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

      Something that I haven't seen talked about is the Pacers TV money situation. The Pacers, as well as the Spurs, Nuggets and Nets have to give up 1/6 of their TV money to the former owners of the St. Louis ABA franchise.

      I would think that this would make the Pacers a less attractive team to buy if someone was looking to purchase a team and move it. Immediately the new owner is at a disadvantage league revenue wise. This is a deal that simply stays with the franchise whether it's in Indianapolis or moves somewhere else. At least that is my understanding.

      So...let's say the Pacers and the Memphis Grizzlies are both for sale. I would think that someone looking to buy a team and move it would pick the Grizzlies in a heart beat because of the revenue disparity (The Grizzlies and the other 25 NBA teams don't have this horrible TV revenue sharing deal of the 4 former ABA franchises).

      Could it be that our bad TV revenue sharing deal actually makes it less likely that the team moves?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

        I'm glad to see a positive picture that uses some facts to back it up rather than just the typical hyperbole. Thanks for this post.

        I remain passimistic, particularly given the collapse of the CIB funding solution and the venom showed against the Simons by some members of the public. It amazes me, the love being shown for Irsay and the Colts, when it hasn't been that many years since Jim's dad routinely pi**ed off the city with his actions and comments. Add to that the vitriol piled on the Simons because of the other deals they have gotten while providing jobs and an economic explosion in Indianapolis and I think people's anger is based on timing and winning record, not on the reality of economic contributions.

        I hope you are right, and I hope this kind of sense prevails. The question is, does it simply change the question from one of selling the franchise to one of folding the franchise?
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

          Originally posted by Iceman1 View Post
          Could it be that our bad TV revenue sharing deal actually makes it less likely that the team moves?
          I think if the league was interested in supporting the former ABA owners they'd figure out a way to have the league take over the payments.

          An amount that really hurts a small-market team is trivial when spread over the entire base of teams.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

            I kind of want them to move to a bigger city where theyll get more attention

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

              Originally posted by Lester View Post
              I kind of want them to move to a bigger city where theyll get more attention



              EDIT: Well, that didn't take long.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

                If this has been posted by anyone else earlier, please disregard and delete this post.

                I received this in an e-mail from the Colts last Thursday and am not sure if the link will allow others to view this as a Colts webpage or not

                http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=ar...5-392428ebd567


                STATEMENT FROM THE COLTS


                Dear Colts Fans:

                Much has been reported and communicated about the Colts over the past several months, including several statements which have been either misleading or simply untrue. We would like to set the record straight by sharing with you facts of the Colts' financial contributions to the State of Indiana and the City of Indianapolis and the club's significant investment in the building and on-going operation of Lucas Oil Stadium.

                First and foremost, the Indianapolis Colts have not sought in the past, nor is the club currently seeking, any special favors from the CIB, the City of Indianapolis, or the State of Indiana.

                The Colts never asked for a new stadium. In 2004, the City of Indianapolis approached the Colts about the possibility of a new stadium, not the other way around. The City's need for an expanded convention center and desire to accommodate the NCAA for future Final Fours prompted its exploration of a facility to replace the RCA Dome. At no time did the Colts threaten to leave Indianapolis or otherwise "hold the city hostage."
                The Colts negotiated in good faith with the State and the City and eventually entered into a development agreement with the Indiana Stadium and Convention Building Authority (ISCBA), governing the construction of Lucas Oil Stadium, and a lease with the CIB, governing the Colts' use of the stadium.
                The Colts made a 30-year commitment to the community. Those written agreements, signed nearly four years ago, committed the team to this community for the next 30 years with no option to renegotiate, regardless of any financial downturns that might arise.
                The Colts agreed to take the risk and responsibility to achieve financial success in Indianapolis. The new agreements also removed the financial guarantees for the Colts that existed in our RCA Dome lease that could have cost the city tens of millions of dollars on a regular basis. In essence, the risk of financial success in a small market has been shifted from the city solely to the Colts.
                The Colts have been meticulous in meeting and, indeed, often exceeding the requirements of those agreements. We have contributed over $100 Million to the construction of the facility and it is simply untrue for anyone to suggest we don't have "skin in the game."
                It is also important to note that, from the very beginning, Lucas Oil Stadium was designed to be a multi-use facility to accommodate many users, not just the Colts. Already, the stadium has successfully hosted many events having nothing whatsoever to do with professional football and many more are already scheduled for years to come. While we are immensely proud to be able to call Lucas Oil Stadium our home field, the fact of the matter is the Colts only use the stadium a maximum of nineteen days a year; and the facility is available for use by virtually anyone else the remaining 346 days.
                Second, the Colts have been engaged in extensive dialogue, based upon facts and equity, with those leaders who are working hard to find a solution to the CIB funding shortfall. Jim Irsay has personally met with Senator Luke Kenley and Mayor Greg Ballard to discuss these matters. Our representatives have also been in frank, open, and continuing communication with the CIB and the financial leaders of the state legislature since this issue began to emerge early last winter.

                Third, our understanding of the CIB's history is that the CIB's budget shortfall is neither new nor unexpected. In fact, only a relatively small portion of the predicted shortfall can be directly attributed to the increase in actual maintenance and operations expense required by Lucas Oil Stadium. What is particularly puzzling is that the shortfall appears to have only become a crisis when the CIB concluded it might be obliged to assume all the operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse to avoid an early termination of the Pacers' lease.
                Fourth, the Colts believe recent criticism of its civic involvement to be unwarranted and unfair. We are extremely proud to have one of professional sports' most comprehensive community outreach programs. While we are deeply involved statewide, we have not predicated charitable giving and civic involvement upon how much public acclaim the club gets in return. The Colts remain committed to that approach.

                Fifth, the Colts' commitment to the City of Indianapolis and the State of Indiana has also included providing an exemplary football team on and off the field. The club has invested heavily in recruiting players and coaches of which Indianapolis and the State of Indiana can be proud -- on game days and all the other days they make positive contributions to our communities. There are no more positive role models than Peyton Manning, Gary Brackett, and Jeff Saturday. We believe the Colts' record in wins as well as community leadership speaks for itself. In anticipation of this weekend's NFL Draft, the Colts are preparing to make multi-year and multi-million dollar commitments to the next generation of leaders like those three.

                The Colts remain optimistic that a fair and equitable solution will be found that assures the fiscal good health of the CIB, an organization that is very important to the long-term success of Indianapolis and the entire State of Indiana. We hope, though, that the public discussions of the issues will be based upon facts.

                Sincerely,

                The Indianapolis Colts








                Update ProfileThis email was sent by: Indianapolis Colts
                7001 W. 56th St. Indianapolis, IN, 46254, USA


                I bolded and underlined the part related to the Pacers "What is particularly puzzling is that the shortfall appears to have only become a crisis when the CIB concluded it might be obliged to assume all the operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse to avoid an early termination of the Pacers' lease."

                This makes it appear that an early termination of the Pacers' lease on Conseco is definitely on the table, making discussions of the future of the franchise quite valid.
                Last edited by Brad8888; 05-01-2009, 03:12 PM. Reason: Better link

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

                  Originally posted by Iceman1 View Post
                  Something that I haven't seen talked about is the Pacers TV money situation. The Pacers, as well as the Spurs, Nuggets and Nets have to give up 1/6 of their TV money to the former owners of the St. Louis ABA franchise.

                  I would think that this would make the Pacers a less attractive team to buy if someone was looking to purchase a team and move it. Immediately the new owner is at a disadvantage league revenue wise. This is a deal that simply stays with the franchise whether it's in Indianapolis or moves somewhere else. At least that is my understanding.

                  So...let's say the Pacers and the Memphis Grizzlies are both for sale. I would think that someone looking to buy a team and move it would pick the Grizzlies in a heart beat because of the revenue disparity (The Grizzlies and the other 25 NBA teams don't have this horrible TV revenue sharing deal of the 4 former ABA franchises).

                  Could it be that our bad TV revenue sharing deal actually makes it less likely that the team moves?
                  I've seen this talked about quite a bit. I'm curious though what if the team moves and its a "new" team. Such as they start with a new name, new colors, and blank slate of team records. Are they still considered the ABA Pacers?
                  Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

                    Simon reports 1Q income jump

                    And, as expected, the intelligent and thoughtful responders say that some of it should go to covering the operating costs at the Fieldhouse, even though they are entirely separate entities.

                    I think the fickleness of the public in regards to what the Simons have done for this city is one of the most disgusting things to come out of the whole mess.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

                      blah, sorry i hate the anti canadian nonsense i read sometimes... Canada is failed experiment?? lol if all the teams had the support the raptors did, nobody would lose a franchise.

                      As for the Pacers, i really dont think they are going anywhere.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

                        Originally posted by ryheathco View Post

                        .... Jim Irsay took advantage of the city with L.O.S. was simply nothing short of sinister. Either the Pacers need to be given a similar deal (within reason), or Irsay needs to renegotiate some of the benefits he received on a stadium that was burdened by tax payers and is directly affecting other sports teams. >>
                        [/I]
                        I can't say that I understand this way of thinking about the Colts and Irsay. Jim paid over $100 million for a stadium that he never asked for in the first place and that he has no ownership in. That's a ton of cash for something that he will never own any part of. Also, besides the Colts the Irsays do not have any other form of income that I am aware of; meaning that he is not worth millions without the Colts.

                        On the other side of the table, we have a billionaire and multi-millionaire/former billionaire who bought a franchise for the same reason most of us would buy a sports car, it's more or less a toy for them. They did not pay anything to help build their stadium (that I am aware of at least) and they will still be million/billionaires if they are forced to pay more to the CIB.

                        I understand that the Pacers do not want to continue losing money, and in the exact same way Irsay does not want to pay more than was agreed to.

                        My question is why all the negativism toward Irsay for not wanting to fork over profits from his only form of income after already paying over $100 million for a stadium he never asked for, while at the same time asking the city to favor the Pacers? Does the ability to pay mean nothing to the CIB and the public?

                        -confused

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

                          Originally posted by switch View Post
                          I can't say that I understand this way of thinking about the Colts and Irsay. Jim paid over $100 million for a stadium that he never asked for in the first place and that he has no ownership in. That's a ton of cash for something that he will never own any part of. Also, besides the Colts the Irsays do not have any other form of income that I am aware of; meaning that he is not worth millions without the Colts.

                          On the other side of the table, we have a billionaire and multi-millionaire/former billionaire who bought a franchise for the same reason most of us would buy a sports car, it's more or less a toy for them. They did not pay anything to help build their stadium (that I am aware of at least) and they will still be million/billionaires if they are forced to pay more to the CIB.

                          I understand that the Pacers do not want to continue losing money, and in the exact same way Irsay does not want to pay more than was agreed to.

                          My question is why all the negativism toward Irsay for not wanting to fork over profits from his only form of income after already paying over $100 million for a stadium he never asked for, while at the same time asking the city to favor the Pacers? Does the ability to pay mean nothing to the CIB and the public?

                          -confused
                          According to Forbes Magazine:

                          "A decrepit stadium can be replaced. In 2005 Marion County and the state agreed to finance all but $100 million of a new $719 million retractable-roof stadium for the Colts. Lucas Oil, a California fuel additives producer (no relation to the Russian Lukoil), chipped in $122 million for naming rights over 20 years. The Colts moved into Lucas Oil Stadium earlier this month. The team is on the hook for only a $66 million loan from the city, which Irsay can pay back over 27 years. The Colts pay a tiny $250,000 in annual rent while reaping all football-related revenues (tickets, parking, concessions, sponsorships), which will add $30 million a year. Remarkably, Irsay faced little resistance from taxpayers asked to pick up so much of the cost. "It's definitely one of the most favorable leases in recent league history," says Robert Vogel, president of the Bonham Group. This year the Colts make a jump in our value rankings, from 21 to 8, as their enterprise value increases 18% to $1.1 billion."

                          If you really are confused, let me clarify. No one is saying, "Let's favor the Pacers." My point is, "Let's be fair."

                          P.S., The Colts got to pocket the $122 million dollar naming right. Sounds like that $100 million Irsay chipped in (My understanding it was only around 3/4 of 100 mill).
                          Last edited by 1984; 05-04-2009, 08:54 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

                            Originally posted by ryheathco View Post
                            P.S., The Colts got to pocket the $122 million dollar naming right. Sounds like that $100 million Irsay chipped in (My understanding it was only around 3/4 of 100 mill).
                            You also need to subtract the money the CIB paid the Colts against breaking the RCA dome lease, which I think was over $50 million. Now there's something I think is silly - moving them to a new facility counts as breaking the lease.

                            No, the Colts aren't hurting over this.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Pacers: Moving or Staying?

                              And, for those pointing to the value of the Pacer franchise as the reason why the Simons should be forced to suck up the losses, be aware that Forbes estimates the value of the Colts at $1 BILLION - that's "B" as in "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b".

                              The same arguments against use of this figure apply as those against using the Pacer franchise "value", but a lot of people are ignoring those. I figured I'd throw this REALLY BIG apple into the comparison.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X