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:
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

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: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    I don't say this enough but I'll say it now.

    Thank God for Herb Simon (& Mel prior to his passing).

    We have an owner who is committed to keeping the team here. I know there are arguments to be made for every side to this story but I believe in my heart that the Simons took on the franchise at the behest of Mayor Hudnut back in the 80's for the beneifit of the city/state and that they have kept it here all of these years.
    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)


    • #17
      Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

      Originally posted by odeez View Post
      Ok Pacers, now spend some of that money on the team!

      Can't. This doesn't change the salary cap situation at all.

      And anyway, the Pacers franchise was losing money previously. Getting the better deal from the city only means maybe now the franchise will break even or turn a small profit, either immediately or after the new CBA drives down the payroll.

      There isn't any infusion of new surplus cash here.

      I'm glad there's a deal, but I don't like this one much. I thought the city should have taken back the facility. It belongs to the city. The Pacers ought to have just rented space in it without further obligation to manage it.

      I wonder if there is any sort of kicker in the new agreement saying PS&E has to work harder to keep the building busy.

      And we all know what that means:

      Spoiler Spoiler:
      Last edited by Putnam; 07-12-2010, 07:44 AM.
      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)


      • #18
        Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

        Yay. The Fieldhouse would've seemed awfully empty. Feels like the Pacers have touched bottom and kicked up and off. Now if one or two guys from the youth movement can just make the jump to good starter....

        Last edited by danman; 07-12-2010, 07:47 AM.


        • #19
          Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

          The Indiana Pacers are staying in Indianapolis, but it will cost taxpayers at least $33.5 million over the next three years.

          - Matt Kryger / The Star

          Deal's highlights
          The CIB will give $30 million over the next three seasons to the Pacers.
          The CIB will make a minimum of $3.5 million in capital improvements to Conseco Fieldhouse.
          The Pacers will continue to operate the fieldhouse and keep revenues from game and nongame events.
          If the Pacers move before the 2013-14 season, they will repay $30 million to the CIB by June 30, 2013.
          The amount the Pacers repay will be reduced for each season that they continue to play at Conseco: If they play the 2013-14 season, they'll repay $28 million; by 2018-19, that would fall to $1 million.
          Sources: Capital Improvement Board, mayor's office

          Pacers' deal vs. Colts' deal
          Here's a look at some highlights from the Colts' contract and the Pacers' "interim bridge agreement."

          Length of deal
          Pacers: During the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons, the team will play home games at Conseco Fieldhouse. After that, the team could leave if its losses are greater than $2 million per year but would have to pay a fee starting at roughly $50 million and diminishing with each year through the end of the contract in 2019.
          Colts: Must play all home games in Lucas Oil Stadium until 2034.

          Operation of arena
          Pacers: The team continues to operate Conseco Fieldhouse. The Capital Improvement Board will make a minimum of $3.5 million in capital improvements to the fieldhouse, but that could grow depending on how much money the CIB received in 2009 from an expanded sports taxing district.
          Colts: The CIB is responsible for maintenance of the stadium and game-day expenses, such as security. The Colts pay no rent and no maintenance costs.

          Other financial arrangements
          Pacers: The CIB will give $10 million each of the next three years to Pacers Sports & Entertainment to help reduce building operating expenses at Conseco Fieldhouse. The Pacers will continue to receive non-Pacers-related revenue derived from events at the fieldhouse, as well as revenues from a stadium name, signs and sponsorships in the stadium.
          Colts: The team keeps rights to all football-related revenue in the stadium, as well as half the annual nonfootball revenue, up to $3.5 million. The team receives all revenues from a stadium name, signs and sponsorships in the stadium. The city no longer must make up the difference between the team's annual revenues and the NFL median.

          Leaving town?
          Pacers: If the Pacers leave before the 2013-14 season, they will repay $30 million to the CIB by June 30, 2013.
          Colts: The team is committed to stay put for 30 years.

          Sources: Capital Improvement Board, mayor's office, Star research
          The city and the Pacers are expected today to announce an agreement hailed by some as an important step in protecting the financial state of the city but criticized by others as a multimillion-dollar bailout of a professional sports team and its billionaire owner.

          The deal comes after months of negotiations between the NBA franchise and the Capital Improvement Board, which operates the city's sports venues. It supplements the existing contract between the parties, which lasts through 2019.

          The idea of providing money to a sports franchise has incited criticism by some, but city leaders insisted they have been tough negotiators. They didn't agree to cover the full operating cost of Conseco Fieldhouse, estimated at $15 million to $18 million per year, or the roughly $25 million in capital improvements the Pacers said were needed at the fieldhouse. And they locked in what they called an important addition to the Downtown economy for three years.

          "The mayor has said we need to protect the taxpayer and we need to protect the tax base," said Robert Vane, deputy chief of staff and communications director for Mayor Greg Ballard. "This agreement does both."
          Under the terms, control of Conseco Fieldhouse -- and revenues from all events there -- will remain with the team, but unlike the current contract, the city will chip in $10 million per year for fieldhouse operations for the next three years. The city also will pay at least $3.5 million for capital improvements at the fieldhouse, an amount that has the potential to increase by up to $4.7 million.

          In exchange, the Pacers must stay in Indianapolis through the 2012-13 basketball season or pay back the entire $30 million. The team also would be on the hook for a portion of that $30 million if it left before its contract expired in 2019.

          For example, if the team left in 2016, it would pay back $19 million; if it left in 2018, it would pay back $7 million. That would be in addition to the termination fees -- estimated at $20 million-- spelled out in the existing agreement.

          If the Pacers stay through the end of their current contract, which ends in 2019, they would not have to pay any of the money back.
          So, is the new agreement a good deal for taxpayers? The answer to that question seemed to depend entirely on whom you asked Sunday evening.
          "I think we have gone so far overboard in subsidizing professional sports in this city that it's insane," said Fred McCarthy, a local political blogger and nearly 50-year Indianapolis resident. "I just think it's ridiculous that brilliant businessmen who have made themselves billionaires in the market, in the business world, can operate a business in a rent-free building and continue to lose money while they're doing it."

          Pat Andrews, vice president of the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, put it differently.

          "It sounds like more sports welfare," she said.

          Indianapolis resident Elizabeth Koeppen, 82, said she could live with a deal to benefit the Pacers if the city was not struggling to find money to fund other city services, such as libraries, buses and basic infrastructure.

          "I think we should attend to the serious problems in our city," she said, "before we spend money for the Pacers."
          Funding for the CIB comes from taxes on things such as auto rentals, cigarettes, hotels, and food and beverages -- and not property taxes, which help fund many other city services.

          But while some argue the city can't afford to help the Pacers, the city contends that it can't afford not to.
          A study commissioned by the CIB this spring showed the team drives about $55 million worth of economic impact in Indianapolis each year, in addition to the more than 900 jobs and millions in tax revenue. Some sports economists, however, say such studies overstate the financial impact of professional sports teams.

          Others say that, beyond the economic boost, there are benefits that are hard to measure, such as the impact on the city's image.
          "The Pacers, the symphony, the Colts, the museums, the mall . . . give people reasons why they want to come live here, especially bright young people," said Jim Morris, president of Pacers Sports & Entertainment. "The best cities are competing for investment capital; they're competing for jobs."

          Indianapolis residents such as Mike Smith, 55, agree. He said helping the team is a $30 million investment that brings the community together, benefits the local economy and provides entertainment for fans such as him.

          "I don't know what I'd do without them," said Smith, a longtime Pacers fan.

          T. Noble Foster, a professor of business law at Seattle University who has studied Seattle's negotiations with its former NBA team, called the deal a good move for the team and the city.

          "They keep the team in town, and that was what they wanted," Foster said. "And it didn't cost as much as they were told it was going to cost, so I think they need to be happy with that for the moment."

          Still, Foster said he expects the Pacers won't be satisfied with the $30 million and likely will seek the $10 million per year in payments beyond the end of this three-year agreement.

          Morris did not say the team would ask for more money in three years. But he said Pacers owner Herb Simon was committed to keeping the team in the city for the next 30 years and hoped to come to an agreement that would make that possible.

          "I hope the parties will have additional conversations to ensure the Pacers will have a long-term relationship with the Capital Improvement Board," Morris said, "and to ensure whoever owns them next will keep the team in Indianapolis."

          The city also wouldn't predict whether more funding would be needed in three years -- or whether providing it would be possible. The idea behind a short-term funding plan was to allow room to reassess after new assets such as the expanded Indiana Convention Center and the J.W. Marriott hotel come on board.

          Also, an NBA collective bargaining agreement expected next summer could put the Pacers in a more favorable financial position.

          Simon first asked the city for help in the spring of 2009, when he said the team had lost about $200 million since he and his brother, the late Mel Simon, bought it in 1983. It's estimated the team is losing about $30 million per year.

          For this year, the board's efforts to cut its spending and increase revenues have provided enough money to make the $10 million payment, said CIB President Ann Lathrop. As of May, the CIB had brought in $3.8 million more in revenue than budgeted and spent $7.5 million less than budgeted.

          Much of the additional revenue came from additional sales and income taxes from an expanded sports district passed by the legislature as part of an assistance package last year, and from events such as the Final Four NCAA men's basketball tournament.

          Lathrop acknowledged that sustaining those revenue sources, even with the new hotel and convention space, will depend on the economy, but she said the board also is working to cut costs over the long term through things such as information technology consolidation and energy cost savings.

          The CIB and the three-member board that issues its debt service are expected to vote on the proposal Friday.

          Because the CIB is finding the money within its existing budget, the City-County Council does not have to sign off on this year's spending. But the council can control whether the CIB makes future payments through the budgeting process.

          Edit: Sorry, didn't see BoomBaby33's post when I posted. Anyway, here's the article if you're too lazy to click the link.
          Last edited by tsm612; 07-12-2010, 08:18 AM.


          • #20
            Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

            I'm kind of worried about what might happen in 2019 now.


            • #21
              Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

              Originally posted by Bball View Post
              I don't think this changes anything to what I think is going on. At least not judging by legible parts of the paper. Actually, this would be an expected step...

              I agree. I don't see where this changes anything. It doesn't mention anything about a change in ownership, just moving the Pacers out of Indy. With a new contract with the City of Indianapolis, possible new ownership would have an agreement in place with the City concerning Conseco. This new contract ties up a loose end to help Herb Simon sell the Pacers. In the event Herb Simon sells the Pacers, the City has an agreement that would be costly for new ownership to move the Pacers from Indy. That's the main thing, protecting the City from the Pacers being moved, not Herb Simon selling the Pacers. I don't see this new agreement changes anything in regards to Herb Simon selling the Pacers if he decides that is what he wants to do.


              • #22
                Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                By definition everything that helps the current economic state of the Pacers helps a potential sale. That doesn't mean that the purpose is to sell.

                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...


                • #23
                  Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                  I don't have the time to really get into this today. I'm glad that those of you who really thought the Pacers would have an opportunity to go elsewhere in this economic climate feel better now. Of course, in 3 years the talk'll start right up again, and just like with the federal bailouts, a precedent has been set.

                  Ooh, and please don't give me, "Yeah, PS&E wanted $15M in free money a year, and the city only gave them $10M. That's a tremendous deal."
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!


                  • #24
                    Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                    I do not understand why people are so up in flames, like Citizen A is forced to pay for the Pacers.

                    That fact is the CIB taxes are not mandatory taxes. You don't have to buy or use Cigarettes, rental cars, hotel rooms, event tickets, eating out, drinking alcohol.

                    So you are not forced to pay for anything! All of these things are usage. I'd love for somebody to actually prove they are forced to pay for the Pacers.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                    • #25
                      Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                      For the approximate $10 or so per man, woman, and child that this agreement costs the taxpayers per year, why don't the Pacers send a $10 off voucher to each and every one of them somehow as compensation, with that voucher being good towards any ticket purchase or Pacers merchandise purchase they make? That way they can say that they are giving back to the community while promoting the franchise.


                      • #26
                        Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                        For the approximate $10 or so per man, woman, and child that this agreement costs the taxpayers per year, why don't the Pacers send a $10 off voucher to each and every one of them somehow as compensation, with that voucher being good towards any ticket purchase or Pacers merchandise purchase they make? That way they can say that they are giving back to the community while promoting the franchise.
                        Because then they would lose more money. They dont' want our money, just to give it back to us in the form of store credit.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                        • #27
                          Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                          Originally posted by Trophy View Post
                          I think we'll be able to pay the city back in the end.

                          We're going to be successful by then.
                          According to the Pacers brand of accounting, they lost money even when they were successful. They won't pay back squat. By 2019, I'm sure they'll be back with their hands cupped together, talking about how the Fieldhouse just isn't nearly good enough to support an NBA franchise and it needs $XX million in improvements just to remain competitive.
                          Spoiler Spoiler:


                          • #28
                            Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                            Three questions:
                            1. How can the Pacers ever make profit when they've even lost money while being among the top 5 teams in the league with sold-out arenas and numerous consecutive playoff appearences?
                            2. What the hell are the reasons for them losing money in their best seasons?
                            3. Reading the reactions to the article on, it seems like about 90 % of readers (= inhabitants of Indiana) hates the Pacers and wants them to leave. Is the perception really that bad or what's going on on the other side of the Pond?


                            • #29
                              Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                              Originally posted by 31andonly View Post
                              Three questions:
                              1. How can the Pacers ever make profit when they've even lost money while being among the top 5 teams in the league with sold-out arenas and numerous consecutive playoff appearences?
                              2. What the hell are the reasons for them losing money in their best seasons?
                              3. Reading the reactions to the article on, it seems like about 90 % of readers (= inhabitants of Indiana) hates the Pacers and wants them to leave. Is the perception really that bad or what's going on on the other side of the Pond?
                              Well i'm not sure how it is in Deutschland, but Indianapolis is full of idiots who don't understand anything about taxes, and who collects them, and things certain taxes pay for and what they can't pay for. Generally an uneducated society, who only pays attention to buzz words. Taxes=equal bad! Tax cuts= hell yeah! Parks and library closes due to tax cuts= hey whats the deal! why would close our parks and librarys!
                              Last edited by graphic-er; 07-12-2010, 10:17 AM.
                              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                              • #30
                                Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

                                This is great news....although there are alot of people in Indianapolis that don't support the decision, but these are either bandwagon/frontrunner fans or people that don't watch sports/nba at all. Oh well, can't make everybody happy.
                                Larry Bird and Ryan Grigson- wasting the talents of Paul George and Andrew Luck