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

IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

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

  • IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

    Indiana Business Journal article excerpts. Link to full story is:

    http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframe...1256&NoFrame=1

    IBJ uncovering/covering/instigating Conseco wrangle?
    It's a fairly long article. Check out the link.-- kester99

    Fieldhouse flop?
    Pacers: We’ve lost money 9 of last 10 years
    Sat. February 07 - 2009
    Anthony Schoettle - aschoettle@ibj.com



    Swamped by fi nancial losses that go back to the time Herb and Mel Simon bought the Indiana Pacers in 1983, team officials are now looking for a new game plan—one that may involve fi nancial assistance from taxpayers and visitors.

    Apparently, not even housing the team in the much-ballyhooed Conseco Fieldhouse or a trip to the National Basketball Association fi nals could stop the Pacers’ bleeding.

    .................................................. .................................................. ........................

    The Indiana Pacers have lost money in 25 of the last 27 years, including nine of the last 10 seasons in Conseco Fieldhouse, said Pacers Sports & Entertainment President Jim Morris. The losses, he added, are much higher than recently published estimates of more than $6 million annually.

    .................................................. .................................................. ............................

    “No one,” said Morris, shifting forward in his chair and raising his voice for emphasis, “has ever suggested that we would move the Pacers out of Indianapolis. The Simons have not asked the city for anything. The question is, how do we keep this franchise here for this community for the next 50 years?”

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................

    Rosentraub, who will publish his second book on professional sports operation later this year, said CIB, City-County councilors and the mayor must closely scrutinize the Pacers’ fi nancials before any tax money or users’ fees are put toward Fieldhouse operations. While Rosentraub thinks PS&E could have lost $20 million to $30 million over the last three seasons, he’s mystified by the team’s other claims.

    “I would be hard-pressed to accept that, in the robust economic years, Pacers Sports & Entertainment lost money,” said Rosentraub, who is a commissioner of the Gateway Economic Redevelopment Corp., which oversees operations for Cleveland’s NBA and Major League Baseball venues. “I don’t buy it. There are a lot of ways to categorize financial losses and gains. I certainly wouldn’t accept the argument that the arena is an albatross to operate.

    “As part of their fi duciary responsibility, the city council and mayor at a minimum have to see those numbers. And I mean everything. The Pacers have to state their case.”


    [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

  • #2
    Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

    I, too, question this statement:

    The Indiana Pacers have lost money in 25 of the last 27 years, including nine of the last 10 seasons in Conseco Fieldhouse, said Pacers Sports & Entertainment President Jim Morris.
    I believe that the Pacers have had an overall loss over the last 27 years, and an overall loss over the last 10 seasons, I do not see how they could've shown losses in 25 separate years.

    I find that bothersome, because their position is strong enough with simply the net Operating Loss over the ownership. It does seem to be an odd claim to make. Either, they're making an imprudent exaggeration, or they have pretty strong data to support the claim. It simply seems foolish to me to make that specific of a statement, because they have to know it will be challenged.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

      If there is truth in the numbers presented, and the claim of losses in the pre-brawl Conseco days is true as well, I can't see where our franchise will ever be financially viable without the entire NBA agreeing to absorbing all of the St. Louis TV money losses AND reworking the entire structure of revenue sharing to support its financially strapped franchises.

      The expectation of additional taxpayer support, if there is any, will likely alienate most casual fans and reduce attendance in any market that attempts to subsidize teams, even if the facilities are fully utilized for non-basketball functions. Ticket prices for any of the events held at the facilities will go up, as well as many other local taxes on totally unrelated discretionary spending, further dampening the very economic activity that nearly every area of our country needs to be encouraging.

      What are the odds that the "haves" in the NBA, from a revenue standpoint, will help the "have nots"? Is it in the league's best interest to go through a contraction and thereby reduce the total number of teams and therefore players, which would also theoretically improve the overall average quality of players actually in the league while encouraging more prospects to actually attend college in a meaningful way? If so, would that also make players more NBA ready, injuries notwithstanding, than they have been in many years, making the overall talent pool even better yet, while boosting interest in NCAA basketball due to fewer players being able to leave early due to a reduction in overall roster spots available in the league?

      I don't want to be, but I am worried about the future of the franchise, regardless of the claims of TPTB. It could get quite rocky from here, and were it not for the overall economic impact of the franchise on Indianapolis and, to a much lesser extent, central Indiana, the decisions could become no-brainers. It will be a tough sell for all involved to get our franchise the assistance it likely requires from whatever sources who might be willing / able to provide it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

        Originally posted by kester99 View Post
        “No one,” said Morris, shifting forward in his chair and raising his voice for emphasis, “has ever suggested that we would move the Pacers out of Indianapolis. The Simons have not asked the city for anything. The question is, how do we keep this franchise here for this community for the next 50 years?”
        This right here, along with everything else being said assures me that NOTHING is going to happen relocation-wise to this team. The city has too much invested in the Pacers for them to leave.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

          There is no way the Pacers have lost money 25 of the last 27 years, unless Don King is their financial adviser.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

            Besides reworking the lease to the tune of $15M/year... What else do they want from the taxpayers?
            ...Still "flying casual"
            @roaminggnome74

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              There is no way the Pacers have lost money 25 of the last 27 years, unless Don King is their financial adviser.
              I agree. If they lost it then "PS&E, concert division" made a ton of money, or "PS&E, catering" made a ton of money.

              There are all sorts of ways to work the books and divide out separate divisions or even companies with each getting cherry picked for which assets and debts belong to them.

              PS&E could be basically paying themselves as different entities for all sorts of services, from parking to concessions to branding rights and so on. Maybe all those other divisions are way in the black because they are getting credit for the income in those areas while they are counted as debts for the main operation.

              This is why I totally agree that the city would need FULL disclosure about their operations before any more money is handed to them. The claims of those kinds of losses means 100% that 15 or more other teams have to be losing money every single year. It's not like all other teams sell-out their arenas or that they aren't all part of the CBA with the player's union.

              This is not baseball. There is a reason we talk about the cap, and it's based on LEAGUE INCOME. Last I checked the cap wasn't set at negative $50m, as in "we all lost money so we are going under, players will have to pay us to play". It's not like the Lakers or Knicks or Celtics have separate TV deals with ESPN.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

                Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                Besides reworking the lease to the tune of $15M/year... What else do they want from the taxpayers?
                I am all for keeping the team here but hearing about all the handouts franchises want makes me crazy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

                  Hey, it's tough all over.

                  If they are losing money, they should consider salary freezes or reductions like the rest of us. If they did that, they would continue to be millionaires AND there would be no financial issue. They at least need to do something more creative than standing at the corner of Illinois and Washington begging like a bum.

                  Seriously, this is just pure greed. It's funny how people who are free market proponents seem to be leaning the hardest on government (i.e. the tax payer) at the present time.


                  Edit: BTW, the Pacers and other teams probably do lose money. An NBA franchise is not something people buy to make a lot of money. They buy them for status symbols and because they already have a ton of money. Just look around the league. Now that it's becoming a bigger financial liability and the investments are down....the hand comes out.
                  Last edited by BlueNGold; 02-07-2009, 04:50 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

                    While its entirely possible that they have shown losses over most of their time here, one thing is for certain-The value of the franchise has skyrocketed since they bought it. Im guessing even after calculating all the losses over they years and adding that to the purchase costs they are still sitting pretty when you compare that to the current franchise value.
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      I agree. If they lost it then "PS&E, concert division" made a ton of money, or "PS&E, catering" made a ton of money.

                      There are all sorts of ways to work the books and divide out separate divisions or even companies with each getting cherry picked for which assets and debts belong to them.

                      PS&E could be basically paying themselves as different entities for all sorts of services, from parking to concessions to branding rights and so on. Maybe all those other divisions are way in the black because they are getting credit for the income in those areas while they are counted as debts for the main operation.

                      This is why I totally agree that the city would need FULL disclosure about their operations before any more money is handed to them. The claims of those kinds of losses means 100% that 15 or more other teams have to be losing money every single year. It's not like all other teams sell-out their arenas or that they aren't all part of the CBA with the player's union.

                      This is not baseball. There is a reason we talk about the cap, and it's based on LEAGUE INCOME. Last I checked the cap wasn't set at negative $50m, as in "we all lost money so we are going under, players will have to pay us to play". It's not like the Lakers or Knicks or Celtics have separate TV deals with ESPN.
                      All very good points.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

                        Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                        While its entirely possible that they have shown losses over most of their time here, one thing is for certain-The value of the franchise has skyrocketed since they bought it. Im guessing even after calculating all the losses over they years and adding that to the purchase costs they are still sitting pretty when you compare that to the current franchise value.
                        The franchise value is worth nothing more than the paper it is written on until the owners decide to AND successfully sell the franchise. If the losses are true, the "value" is likely a lot less than previously thought.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

                          Don't confuse GAAP net income/ loss, or a taxable loss, with losing cash.

                          Who takes the depreciation expense for the building? I don't know, but that could be a big non-cash number on the income statement.

                          Sports franchises have unpredictable profit margins, so they generally are sold for a multiple of revenue instead of earnings. This is likely to be some "funny math" or "funny accounting" to get a subsidy similar to the old MSA subsidy.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            Don't confuse GAAP net income/ loss, or a taxable loss, with losing cash.

                            Who takes the depreciation expense for the building? I don't know, but that could be a big non-cash number on the income statement.

                            Sports franchises have unpredictable profit margins, so they generally are sold for a multiple of revenue instead of earnings. This is likely to be some "funny math" or "funny accounting" to get a subsidy similar to the old MSA subsidy.
                            This is true, but my understanding is that the Pacers are paying a lease on the building. If they have a lease, then it would be highly unlikely that they are the owners, therefore they could not claim the depreciation.

                            I have no definitive proof, but this website lists City of Indianapolis/Marion County as the owner.

                            I do not know enough about the lease to say whether it would be capitalizable or not. I'll be honest, my background and experience is more on the operations and P&L side than the hardcore balance sheet side.

                            My gut reaction to the Pacer P&L and Operating loss is that it is probably a closer representation of cash before taxes than the OP of most companies. My reasoning on this is that, absent ownership of the arena, there would be relatively little in terms of plant & fixed assets. However, I'm not sure if the nature of a professional franchise would be more or less prone to generate "Intangible Assets," which in turn would create amortization, another non-cash expense to the Operating Statement.

                            It is a true and relevant point that the nature of the agreement between the City and the team could result in some different "rules" for the reporting of income. The old MSA agreement dictated that the Pacers share half of the profits with the city in any year that there were profits. While I stop well short of saying that the Pacers reported false losses, I will say without reservation that I'm sure that they presented the financials in the manner most advantageous to them within the auspices of the agreement. That is to say they probably reported the minimum revenues and the maximum costs allowed. How materially different that is from what would be considered "normal" reporting, I cannot tell you.

                            All that being said, I still find it likely that the Simons have put more cash into the Pacers over their ownership than they have taken out. Even so, it has still been a good investment for them, and their estates stand to get a nice chunk of change on the sale of the Pacers.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: IBJ: Conseco Quandary; Economist Questions Pacers' Loss Claims

                              Considering player salaries and what has transpired with the Pacers ticket prices, considering the attendance figures as well, I do NOT find it hard to believe at all that the Pacers have lost money in 9 of the last 10 seasons. Considering all the lean years that we had in the 80s, I really can't dispute that we've lost in 25 of 27 years.

                              You guys can talk about catering, memorabilia sales and concerts all you want, but the heavy hitters affecting the bottom line are player salaries, ticket/suite sales and TV revenues. I don't think the other items amount to enough to make a difference as to whether the bottom line is going to be red or black.

                              For a lot of years, the Pacers have tried to come up with a way to help some seats hold the line on price to get the "average" fan into the fieldhouse, while raising prices on the tickets that would be purchased by high rollers. I really don't know what this has done to the average ticket price, but let's consider what the ticket increase would have to be to cover various levels of salary.

                              Just to do some sample calculations, let's assume you have a team that draws 15,000 fans every year. With 45 home games (41 regular season and 4 pre-season), you would have to raise ticket prices an average of about $1.50 to break even on increased player salaries totalling $1M.

                              Many forum members have stated that they really didn't care what players cost, they just wanted the best players we could get to produce a winner. But in the market that we are in, the Pacers cannot signficantly raise ticket prices (nor have they done so) while trying to maintain/build a contender. You always want more talent, but you must find a way to make the cost of that talent fit into the salary structure that you are forced to maintain. If you don't want to negatively affect your bottom line, then higher salaries must translate directly into higher ticket prices. It's as simple as that.

                              What I am saying is that I don't believe our average ticket price has kept pace with the player salaries, therefore I am not surprised that the Pacers lose money year after year.

                              Many of us have stated that we don't think there is a significant risk of the Pacers relocating in the next few years. Count55 has stated that he sees a greater likelihood in having fewer team franchises than in teams like the Pacers relocating. I agree with that statement.

                              But what this league really needs to help small market team owners and their fans would be for an across the board reduction in player salaries and the salary cap. Reduce the major expenses that the owners have with the understanding that ticket prices could also be reduced within a year or two.


                              Applying that through the years to some of the player salaries that were renegotiated like Reggie, Smits, Jermaine, etc.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X