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

Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

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

  • Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    The Star's editorial board has taken a hard stance on the CIB / Pacers negotiation.

    And by "hard" I mean anti-Pacers.

    ----------


    http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...feit-to-Pacers



    Extreme situations call for extreme measures, and the Capital Improvement Board certainly has taken them. Can its prize tenant say the same?

    Facing a deficit of $47 million last year, the quasi-governmental body that owns Conseco Fieldhouse and operates Lucas Oil Stadium pulled out all the stops.

    In partnership with the mayor's office, the CIB petitioned the legislature for new ways to raise local taxes and for a state loan. It also slashed $33.5 million from its budget, sacrificing arts and cultural programs as well as employees. Not all of those cuts can be made permanent, so the problems remain.

    How, then, can the city justify publicly laying out $15.4 million for the Indiana Pacers, who indicate no intention of taking a hit in return?

    Even granting that we would hate to lose the Pacers and the CIB would have to finance operation of Conseco Fieldhouse if they were to leave, this is a strange way to go about making a deal.

    The Pacers' ownership won't even say how much "help" it needs with the operating cost of Conseco, which the team agreed to take on a decade ago in exchange for a free $180 million palace. For the city, in the person of CIB member Paul Okeson, to tell the world it is "seriously thinking about" shouldering the entire $15.4 million while the Pacers say they'll think about it is mindboggling. The city isn't even ruling out letting the team continue to rake in proceeds from non-Pacer events.

    The Pacers have a contractual right to renegotiate the operating expense issue, but how is this negotiation? Where is the "give" from the other side?

    Forgive us our dredging up of the proposed library closings, the teacher layoffs and the disintegrating streets, but even part of the $15.4 million would be too much to ask of taxpayers. For the business that uses this public building to offer none of the sum in question is a rank insult.

    Owner Herb Simon says he has lost $200 million in 27 years on the franchise. The taxpayers are not responsible for that. Nor should the taxpayers begrudge the fact that Simon Property Group was able to offer $2.5 billion for a bankrupt shopping mall company just this week.

    The Pacers are part of a business empire at whose capabilities the people of Indianapolis can only guess. They might guess that Simon could sell the team, if it is an intolerable burden, to someone who would keep it here.

    They also might guess that the team can spare more than the people can in the current crisis. They don't have to guess how the game is going so far.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

    There's not a word about "the Pacers are a vital part of downtown" or "the state of basketball" or any positive spin.

    It says straight out that "the taxpayers are not responsible" for Pacers loses, but there's only a vague admission that the taxpayers are responsible for CIB properties.



    The editorial really seems quite hostile.

    The Star is taking the side of the city administration, which has neither the will nor the way to solve this problem. It is going to take help from the state, perhaps.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post

      The Pacers' ownership won't even say how much "help" it needs with the operating cost of Conseco, which the team agreed to take on a decade ago in exchange for a free $180 million palace.
      That is not true at all. The Simons paid a % of the cost to build Conseco. I forget how much, but I think it was more than $40M of the $180m price tag. I tried to find the actual figure, but I couldn't.
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 04-17-2010, 09:18 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

        One problem I've always had with Gannett is that they have no clue as to the local flavor of the markets they cover. Had Gannett been here prior to the Colts showing up, they would have seen a downtown that was nearly ghosttown. Of course, Gannett missed the saving of the Pacers in the '70s when the town raised cash to keep the Pacers here and began a renaissance of downtown. Ask Bert Servaas of the value of these two professional franchises that add to the vibrance of downtown and its businesses.
        It has always bothered me when an out of the area owner drums up support for dissing local businesses. Gannett finally reported a profit after how many profitless quarters and this is the stance they take?
        Eddie White has been talking all week how the Pacers are tied to a 4 million $ ransom to the former owners of the St. Louis Spirits for the life of the NBA franchise. Bad business deal but a necessary one that the NBA needs to undue (somehow) to free up cash for this and the other former ABA franchises stuck with it. That would go a much longer way to solving some inequities financially for a city that needs this franchise to move ahead than playing "hardball" with it.
        Once a pro franchise moves, its at least twice as hard to recoup. I can't disagree more with Gnnett on this one, and I've seen a lot of things to disagree with over the years! C Jamaal Horton...for one. Gannett solved that hire...Why can't they take a fresh approach to the Pacers deal with the city?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

          as I was searching for how much the Simons paid of the cost to build Conseco i found this

          Pacers would owe the city $50m if they move. this is a much better read than that stupid editorial
          http://www.ibj.com/pacers-would-pay-.../article/19345


          Pacers would pay big if they moved
          April 17, 2010
          Moving the Indiana Pacers from Conseco Fieldhouse to another city would impose serious financial hardship on the franchise, according to one interpretation of the team's 10-year-old deal with the city.
          Moving the Indiana Pacers from Conseco Fieldhouse to another city would impose serious financial hardship on the franchise, according to one interpretation of the team’s 10-year-old deal with the city.

          The Pacers are asking for $15 million annually—or $150 million over the last 10 years of the lease deal for Conseco Fieldhouse—to operate the 18,165-seat venue. The Pacers began asking for the money almost two years ago, but city officials—dealing with their own fiscal crisis—have been slow to comply.

          If team officials don’t get a deal ironed out with the city’s Capital Improvement Board by June 30, Pacers officials confirmed that they will begin examining all ways to remain financially viable—and intimated in an April 14 Indianapolis Star story that moving the team was among their options.

          CIB President Ann Lathrop did not return calls seeking comment for this story, but told IBJ March 30 that city officials are continuing to work with the Pacers to resolve the issue. She was noncommittal in her support of funneling cash to the Pacers and didn’t indicate any deadline the city is working under.

          Sources close to Mayor Greg Ballard said the mayor seeks more control of Conseco Fieldhouse operations, and is resisting merely writing a check to the Pacers and letting the team continue to manage the facility on its own.

          Attorney Paul Ogden has written extensively about the Conseco Fieldhouse lease deal.

          The notion of having Conseco Fieldhouse sit vacant in the heart of downtown is a dire scenario for Indianapolis. To prevent such a situation, city officials who negotiated the lease included several clauses to discourage the franchise from moving.

          The lease for the city-owned fieldhouse stipulates the Pacers organization would have to pay at least $50 million to the city if it vacated the venue, which opened in 1999. Pacers officials have been reticent to discuss the buyout, and declined to comment for this story.

          Though the voluminous contract between Pacers Sports & Entertainment and the city is difficult to understand, local attorney Paul Ogden thinks the organization could be on the hook for more than $150 million if it decides to break the lease before it expires in 2019.

          “I’ve spent two-plus years trying to interpret that one paragraph about contract termination,” said Ogden, who works in the local Roberts & Bishop law office and has written about the subject extensively for his Web site, Ogden on Politics. “The Pacers and city are largely insulated from [local media and citizens] looking at this contract because the average attorney, let alone layperson, can’t understand it. Nothing in this contract is clear.”

          What Ogden was able to discern is that the Pacers must sell the team to break the lease, and the penalty to break that lease is tied to the sale price. Plus, the Pacers would be on the hook for part of utilities expenses CIB paid dating back to the team’s days in Market Square Arena.

          The lease, Ogden said, stipulates that an “application termination percentage” will be multiplied by the net sale proceeds to come up with the biggest chunk of the penalty.

          “That applicable termination percentage starts out at 50 percent in 2009 and declines about 3 percent to 6 percent every year,” Ogden said.

          Forbes magazine valued the Pacers franchise at $281 million in December 2009, which, according to Ogden, means the penalty would be $132 million. Factor in $15 million in unforgiven MSA utilities expenses, and the figure reaches $147 million.

          There’s another penalty provision that kicks in after 2010 that Ogden says would cost the Pacers $234 million if the lease is terminated. But that provision is to be used only if it is less than the first penalty.

          CIB Treasurer Paul Okeson said, “When you peel it all back, the penalty isn’t as substantial as you might think.” Ogden disputes that. Even officials within Ballard’s administration concede that the penalty will be in the “tens of millions of dollars” range.

          City officials don’t think the penalty would be big enough to impede the sale of the team to an out-of-state group, but said penalty proceeds would be enough to operate the fieldhouse without the Pacers for at least three or four years.

          City officials also could potentially go after $3.45 million annually the Pacers have not paid for parking in a city-owned garage adjacent to Conseco Fieldhouse, though Pacers officials could be exempt from that if they demonstrate they’ve not met revenue thresholds while operating the arena.

          Another important point, Ogden said, is that there is no stipulation within the contract to renegotiate it.

          “There is only a stipulation if the Pacers don’t meet certain revenue thresholds to terminate the contract,” he said.

          Bad time to sell

          There’s another barrier to the Pacers’ moving out of town, said Marc Ganis, president of Chicago-based SportsCorp Ltd., which counts NBA and NFL teams as clients.

          In this economy, with the average value of National Basketball Association franchises declining, the number of buyers who could absorb the penalty and pay enough for team owner Herb Simon to recoup anywhere near his losses over the years is extremely limited, Ganis said.

          According to the contract, the sale of the Pacers is subject to CIB’s right of first refusal. But city officials said, due to time constraints outlined in the contract and also due to the fact that they have no expertise running a professional sports franchise, a purchase by the city is unlikely. The city would have 45 days to react after Pacers ownership receives an acceptable purchase offer.

          Morris told IBJ earlier this year that the Pacers lost $30 million during the 2008-2009 season and he expected another big loss for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, which ends June 30. A financial loss this year would mean the Pacers have lost money 10 of 11 years in Conseco Fieldhouse.

          Morris said the Simon family has lost more than $200 million since buying the franchise in 1983.

          “I don’t think Herb Simon is the type of guy who will sell low,” Ganis said. “Besides Kansas City and maybe Las Vegas, I can’t think of any other markets that would have much interest in an NBA franchise right now.”

          According to studies conducted by Forbes, the Pacers’ value declined $22 million in the last year. In Charlotte, N.C., this year, the Bobcats sold for $275 million to $290 million, according to NBA officials. That’s less than the $300 million Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson paid for the franchise in 2003. Johnson told reporters he lost another $80 million in operations expenses during that time.

          Labor unrest

          Another factor that will impede a sale is an uncertain labor situation and a faltering NBA business model, Ganis said.

          The contract governing NBA players’ pay expires at the end of next season, and the 30 team owners are threatening a lockout unless players agree to massive pay cuts.

          The Pacers are far from the only NBA team in financial distress. NBA Commissioner David Stern said during all-star weekend in Dallas that the league stands to lose $400 million this season, and has lost at least $200 million each of the last four seasons. He said as many as nine teams are in serious financial trouble.

          Stern is calling for reducing the players’ take from 57 percent to 43 percent of the league’s total revenue, with an individual player salary cap of $13 million per season.

          It’s a pretty radical shift, but Stern realizes he needs to act before teams begin to fold.

          To no surprise, Billy Hunter, the NBA players’ union boss, scoffed at Stern’s suggestions, but Ganis thinks eventually he’ll have to play ball or teams like the Pacers might not survive.

          “There’s a fundamental problem with the NBA,” Ganis said. “The players are making way too much money for the size of business it is right now. The teams are being forced to squeeze their markets for cash, and when the corporate markets won’t wield what they need, they’re forced, as the Pacers are doing, to try to enlist government support. And that hasn’t gone down well with taxpayers.”

          Sources close to the Pacers said Simon—who took over as the team’s sole owner when his brother, Mel, died in 2009—is beginning to have serious reservations about the future of the team.

          In previous interviews, Simon and Morris have been steadfast in saying the Simon family has interest in retaining the team long term. But Morris’ recent public pronouncements that Pacers’ brass would examine all possibilities casts doubt on that.

          “The Simon family has poured millions and millions of dollars into this franchise,” said Milt Thompson, president of Grand Slam Cos., a local sports marketing firm. “If you’re in business, you want that business to be self-sustaining. If you can’t get it to that point, you start to consider other options. I think we’re at the point where Herb Simon realizes he can’t continue under the current circumstances.”•

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post



            Owner Herb Simon says he has lost $200 million in 27 years on the franchise.
            Can anyone explain to me how that is possible?

            I mean, it's not like the Pacers have always been as bad and unpopular as they are today? They've had seasons of sold out arenas, reached the playoffs and Eastern Conference Finals for consecutive years, many many national TV appearences etc.

            How come that they have not made any profit at all with this team?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

              Originally posted by 31andonly View Post
              Can anyone explain to me how that is possible?

              I mean, it's not like the Pacers have always been as bad and unpopular as they are today? They've had seasons of sold out arenas, reached the playoffs and Eastern Conference Finals for consecutive years, many many national TV appearences etc.

              How come that they have not made any profit at all with this team?
              Creative bookkeeping...
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                I agree with the Star. The city shouldn't be funding the operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse unless they get something in return.

                If for some reason they get talked into funding the operating costs then they should get 100% of the profits in non-Pacer events held at Conseco and get to hold events there whenever they want on days that the Pacers aren't using it.

                Where could the Pacers move to in this financial crisis? What cities have the funds available to build them a stadium? They would likely have to go to a city that already has a stadium and there's probably a reason those cities have empty stadiums. I think it's just an empty threat by the Pacers so they can get their way.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                  Originally posted by Bball View Post
                  Creative bookkeeping...
                  Like paying Jermaine outrageous buck$ to be the face of the franchise? Drafting Haskin first? Paying Tinsley his long term? Extending OB's contract one more year?
                  Bad business decisions add up but still...this city needs what the franchise brings to it, IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    That is not true at all. The Simons paid a % of the cost to build Conseco. I forget how much, but I think it was more than $40M of the $180m price tag. I tried to find the actual figure, but I couldn't.
                    Thank you!

                    I'm slightly horrified that this lie is in the press. A lot of locals are going to not know better and think the Simons were just given a "free arena". That's such bull****. It could really damage public opinion if that falsehood spreads.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                      Originally posted by Swingman View Post

                      Where could the Pacers move to in this financial crisis? I think it's just an empty threat by the Pacers so they can get their way.
                      Ask Seattle how they miss their Supersonics. And KC is missing their Royals....
                      Again, lose a franchise and double the bucks (at least) to get one in return.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                        Sources close to the Pacers said Simon—who took over as the team’s sole owner when his brother, Mel, died in 2009—is beginning to have serious reservations about the future of the team.

                        In previous interviews, Simon and Morris have been steadfast in saying the Simon family has interest in retaining the team long term. But Morris’ recent public pronouncements that Pacers’ brass would examine all possibilities casts doubt on that.

                        “The Simon family has poured millions and millions of dollars into this franchise,” said Milt Thompson, president of Grand Slam Cos., a local sports marketing firm. “If you’re in business, you want that business to be self-sustaining. If you can’t get it to that point, you start to consider other options. I think we’re at the point where Herb Simon realizes he can’t continue under the current circumstances.”•

                        http://www.ibj.com/pacers-would-pay-.../article/19345
                        This team was badly managed for a large chunk of time. The chickens are coming home to roost. I'm not sure Simon hasn't put too much trust into people who actually didn't deserve it.

                        The team has been poorly marketed, made some bad personnel decisions, and been very slow to address problems.

                        While I might doubt claims that the Pacers only made a profit in 1 year of Conseco I can easily believe they've bled more red than blue and gold for some time now.

                        And we can't forget that absurd but required ABA payment.

                        There's a very serious question to be asked and that is- If the Pacers aren't viable how is it they are a valuable economic development piece to downtown?

                        I do agree part of the problem is the flawed NBA business model.

                        Obviously the economy is now a problem as well.

                        I think it's fair to question whether Simon really got into this business for the right reasons... at least the type of reasons that would've had him better watching and understanding what his basketball people were doing right... and wrong....
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                          Hicks,
                          You and Unclebuck might want to rethink the part about the Simons directly chipping in for Conseco:

                          Fieldhouse myths

                          The city's strategy in building Conseco Fieldhouse was to wean the Pacers off public subsidies by giving them a brandnew facility with luxury suites. The fieldhouse lease allows the team to keep all venue revenue in exchange for paying for its operation.

                          To that end, the city funded almost every dollar of the $183 million fieldhouse. The team was credited with a $50 million contribution for agreeing to forgo subsidies it had received at Market Square Arena, but it contributed nothing in cash. The team also was allowed to keep $40 million Conseco Inc. paid for naming rights.

                          CIB also built the $25 million, 2,400-space Virginia Avenue Parking Garage east of Delaware Street primarily for use by the Pacers, along with WellPoint Inc. and various city departments.

                          In its 1999 lease deal, the team agreed to pay CIB $3.45 million per year for the use of 1,400 spaces in the garage. On game days when pass-holders don't take all the spaces, the team gets 60 percent of the revenue from its unused spaces. But since the team has failed to reach a prescribed 18-percent profit margin during its tenure at the fieldhouse, the contract allows the Pacers to offset the fee against its operating expenses.

                          "Technically, they are in compliance with the contract," said CIB Vice President Pat Early.

                          Though the Pacers never made the annual garage payment, they still collect the 60-percent share of game-day revenue from the 1,400 spaces. In 2008, the team earned $233,000.

                          The notion that the team covers all its own maintenance is a bit of a myth. CIB already pays for major expenses at Conseco Fieldhouse including new carpet and maintaining the HVAC systems. And in 1999, when the arena opened, CIB spent $62,600 on uniforms for the Pacers staff, including 580 button-down shirts, 472 pairs of pleated khakis, and 15 blazers. It also spent more than $15,000 on six NBA Fastbreak Pinball Machines.

                          Another misconception is that the fieldhouse contract gives the team the right to renegotiate its lease after 10 years—it actually gives the team the right to cancel the lease after the first 10 years if it doesn't reach certain profitability targets.

                          Voiding the lease, though, would cost the team dearly. It would be obligated to pay CIB a termination fee "based on a formula sufficient to reimburse the city for the economic effects of such early termination," the contract says. The minimum penalty is $50 million, but the contract says the Pacers' cost for terminating the lease in 2012 could be as high as $144 million.

                          "No one has exercised that right or given us any indication they're going to," Early said. "Rather than put our head in the sand, we've chosen to enter into discussions with them."
                          Much more:
                          http://www.ibj.com/simon-familys-int...S/article/2315
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                            Indiana Alliance for Democracy

                            Fieldhouse Myths & Facts
                            By Jack Miller & Lou Campagna
                            Updated 1999


                            “I don’t think it’s right for an entrepreneur to ask another entrepreneur for a gift”,1 intoned Herb Simon in a 1997 interview explaining his reluctance to ask other businesses to help fund the new fieldhouse. Sadly, his shyness has never extended to Hoosier taxpayers who have been tapped royally to build and maintain the Conseco Fieldhouse (known briefly as the Indiana Fieldhouse during the early financing stage).

                            The Alliance for Democracy has been closely following the progress of the new Conseco Fieldhouse and we would like to challenge the myths about this so- called Public-Private Partnership (Translation: Public risk and cost-Private gain).

                            v Myth: The Simons are spending $57 million of their own money on the Fieldhouse.

                            v Fact: The $57 million comes from: The Simons’ “renting” 1300 parking spaces for luxury suite and club seat owners @$3.5 million for ten years2 (This is the only revenue that isn’t diverted straight to the Simons and amazingly is still considered Simon money toward building costs!)

                            $20 million from an “expanded ticket tax”3 (That’s a tax on the fans which counts toward the Simons’ share of the building costs!).

                            The Simons did invest $2 million of their own money to “prime the pump” and get the idea accepted. (NOTE: This $2 million is to “be reimbursed if the project is allowed to go forward”4).


                            v Myth: Private investors are chipping in $37 million to help taxpayers build the Fieldhouse.

                            v Fact: The Circle Center Investors will loan $37 million to the CIB to be repaid with interest on or before December 31, 2017.5 If downtown workers don’t rent enough parking spaces to pay back the investors, the taxpayers must. James Snyder, Goldsmith’s special counsel, said, “If we can’t lease the spaces, the City is in trouble.”6

                            v Myth: The final contracts and lease arrangements were signed in 1997 before construction began.

                            v Fact: As of the last Freedom Of Information (FOI) reply from the Capital Improvement Board(CIB) on (2/18/99) “The lease documents have not been executed at this time.”7

                            v Myth: The City will benefit financially from renting the Fieldhouse out for rock concerts, hockey games, and other non-Pacer events, plus share in advertising and broadcasting revenue.

                            v Fact: All proceeds from any rental of the Conseco Fieldhouse go directly to the “The Pacer Basketball Corporation or a subsidiary of the Pacers” including “signage, advertising, and broadcasting revenue income.”8 This includes a recently announced deal in which “seven elite sponsors agree to 5-10 year deals” at up to $1 million each (annually).9

                            v Myth: The sale of naming rights for the Fieldhouse will offset some cost to taxpayers.

                            v Fact: Steve Hilbert has agreed to pay $40 million over 20 years to put his company’s name on our public fieldhouse plus $55 million more to sponsor and all of that $95 million goes to the Simons.10

                            v Myth: With the taxpayers of Indiana paying $100 million in diverted income and sales taxes for the Fieldhouse, the Pacers will certainly pay the cost of maintenance, utilities, and incidentals.

                            v Fact: Unless the Pacers turn at least a whopping 18% profit, the City will continue to reimburse them up to $3.45 million a year for these costs.11

                            v Myth: Having this new sports arena will provide many new jobs and boost the economy in Indianapolis.

                            v Fact: Mark Rosentraub, PhD., a leading analyst of economic impacts of sports, says sports teams “Produce few jobs, little tax revenue, and negligible positive impact even on their own immediate neighborhood.” Rosentraub concludes that “Sports are relatively ‘small potatoes’ when their importance to a region or city’s economy is considered.”12

                            Aside from the money they invested in key politicians ($20,000 to Goldsmith13 and $20,000 to O’Bannon14 in 1996 alone), our study of the available news reports, documents acquired through FOI requests, and talks with CIB officials has failed to turn up any evidence that the Simons have invested a dime in this venture. This lends a certain irony to Mayor Goldsmith’s statement that he “wanted to be careful not to overburden the Simons because the point of building a new arena is to keep the team here and stem the Simons losses.”15

                            The good news is that since the lease remains unsigned, there might still be a way to stem taxpayer losses. This assumes however, that the negotiators have the public interest in mind and so far there’s no indication that they do. In all probability the Simons are holding out for even more “freebies” (If there could possibly be any!) and with the Fieldhouse nearly complete, they hold all the trumps.

                            The Roman poet Horace said, “Semper avarus eget” (The greedy man is always in need). Twenty centuries later, the greedy man is alive and well in Indianapolis.
                            http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2009/...ls-pacers.html
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

                              If they contributed $50mm, they contributed $50mm.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X