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

CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

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

  • #16
    Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

    Any chance to renegotiate the price tag?

    Save money through refinancing to lower interest rates?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

      I'm with ABA Days, this is starting to look real bad.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

        Originally posted by ToasterBusVIP View Post
        What's amazing about all this is that the whole problem could not only be fixed pretty much for good, but could even be made to start channeling profits back into the city, if the league would bring the salary cap down 10-15 mil a year. Or...if that can't happen (which as I understand the Players Union would never agree to) make sure the next CBA phases out yearly cap increases. Each CBA states a new cap number every what...ten years. If the cost of living is a little higher 8 years into the current contract and the players aren't taking home on average a few extra mil then so what?
        Reducing salaries is the other edge of the sword--if you cut salaries substantially, then players would be more inclined to make the jump to Europe. A solid NBA player could easily get 2 million euro with no tax obligation and living expenses covered by a euroleague team. This is basically the equivalent of a $4.3 million a year NBA salary. If you cut salaries 20%, there is a real chance a $4.5 million a year guy now making $3.6 million will leave. Granted, this doesn't mean that 40 or 50 guys are suddenly going to bolt, but you could see the wealthiest dozen or so euroleague teams each poach a mid-tier NBA player. Depth would definitely suffer.

        Europe is definitely feeling the economic effects as well, but not nearly as badly as we are (yet at least). When you throw in the fact that euroleague revenues are growing faster than league revenues (with the game being less mature with more catching up to do over there), the long-term depth issue 5-10 years out may be even more pronounced.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          I still wonder if PS&E isn't too bloated at the top with too many unnecessary positions.
          Having Larry and Donnie doing the same job for years leaps to my mind.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

            Originally posted by grace View Post
            Having Larry and Donnie doing the same job for years leaps to my mind.
            ...Don't you mean Boomer, Bowser, and Bird doing the same job?
            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, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

              I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere how much loses can be attributed to having
              to support the Fever.

              There are a whole world of events that would pack the Fieldhouse more than the
              Fever ever have.

              Sorry Fever fans, but I see them going long before the Pacers do.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                We're in a different kind of economic animal than ever before. The Players Union needs to recognize this or it could well end up with fewer places for players to land. This is serious. Other unions are having to ante up - sports unions can join the club.

                For the first time, I am concerned about the Pacers staying here. I think it's that bad.
                This is certainly a bad time for the Simons to feel jilted about the Colt deal with the economy in a downturn, the Pacers recently hitting rock bottom with the fans, and the CIB realizing it's over extended itself. Meanwhile, the Pacers are far from 'back'.

                Maybe Reggie can give the Simons the Bentley back!?

                Seriously, this whole thing has been boiling for a while. We were handing out excessive contracts like they were candy and getting little in return for them... yet holding onto them like we had Kareem, Magic and Worthy instead of Bender, Croshere, and JO.

                Then we hired Bird to serve as a multi-million dollar long term apprentice to DW... or the 3rd member of the Boomer, Bowser, and Bird mascot team. And we also had Morway all that time too... and still do (and if I had to choose I'm taking Morway over Bird).

                God only knows why Tinsley got the contract he got and why this festered as long as it did.

                Then the team played a very 'anti' Indiana style of basketball that wore thin as it didn't get results and the fanbase soured. The team couldn't even be bothered to pretend they cared about Pacer basketball and the fans off the court. It was a very acidic situation and management waited far too long to address it.

                The way the team was managed the last few years had us on a direct collision course where moving the team went from some unthinkable hypothetical equation to a very real possibility. And then the economy crashed.

                The NBA salary structure has been out of whack for some time overall, and we've been at the forefront of that. So that isn't helping.

                And now, the Simons, who already hold a sweetheart deal with Conseco want a sweeter deal because the Colts rode their recent popularity to a better level of corporate welfare.

                I don't know what the answer is for the Pacers. It's going to have to start with the NBA getting the salaries under control. Please do away with guaranteed contracts for the life of the contract. Make them team options to be picked up yearly for X amount of years. Lower the cap. Lower ticket prices and try for a fast nickels over slow quarters approach.
                It's also going to have to include the NBA standing up for the fans and cities instead of the owners who want to put their hands out and head for the highest bidder every few years.

                Find a way out of that stupid ABA leftover contract with the St Louis owners. Renegotiate it, find a buyout number, or tell them the team is dissolving due to an agreement that is bleeding the team dry and they can roll the dice that it's a bluff or take something over nothing. It's crazy someone hasn't found a loophole out of that before now. That has to be the best contract that was ever drawn up... except only one side is benefiting (arguably).

                This economy is not going to help things in the least on the homefront. The only possible good is it might limit potential suitors looking to lure an NBA team. But I think there is always someone, somewhere, that will be willing to sellout everything for a shot at a pro sports team.

                Of course if the Simons really only purchased the team to 'save' Pacer basketball in Indiana then they should be looking to sell to someone else with the same ideals (if that person exists) but with some new vision for Indy rather than looking to protect and improve their investment or threaten to pull up stakes. But then, maybe the Simons would if that person/group existed.

                I hate to say I told you so... But I told you so. That wasn't being pessimistic, it was being realistic. IIRC my prediction was that if things didn't change the Simons would say they wanted to keep the team in Indy but the fans just didn't care any more and couldn't/wouldn't support it.

                We're still on that track. Truthfully, I think we finally made some of the right moves to slow the train down but then the economy picked a bad time to crash. First fuel went thru the roof putting a damper on travel and luxury spending, and then the economy couldn't sustain that and tanked. Neither being good when you're trying to sell a basketball team that isn't exactly on the verge of contending nor has marketing ever been their forte'.
                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, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                  Indy Star Article
                  http://www.indystar.com/article/2009.../1088/SPORTS04

                  Conseco costs drain Pacers' bottomline
                  By Brendan O’Shaughnessy
                  Posted: March 9, 2009
                  The Capital Improvement Board cut about $400,000 in grants to arts and tourism groups today and revealed new details about the Indiana Pacers’ financial problems.

                  Pat Early, the board's vice president, said the Pacers are losing about $30 million this season and have lost money every year but two of the 28 years the Simons have owned the team.

                  Early said the Pacers cannot continue to shoulder the $15 million per year operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse. He said the team has not threatened to leave but that there is a good chance it will leave or shut down if the CIB does not assume those costs.

                  “If we are unable to do this, we’re really jeopardizing the health of Downtown,” Early said.

                  He called the Fieldhouse and Lucas Oil Stadium the bookends of a $4 billion annual tourism and convention industry. “If one of those bookends goes down, who knows what’s next.”

                  Early said that the city still would have to shoulder the Fieldhouse’s operating costs if the Pacers didn’t play there and estimated that they would be nearly the same. He said the team acknowledges responsibility for its players’ problems off the court but cannot control a collective bargaining agreement that hurts small-market cities.

                  “It’s important that everyone understands the Pacers can’t participate any more financially,” Early said of talk that the city cover only a portion of the operating costs. “They are already participating with millions of dollars every year. We are going to have to find a solution.”

                  The update on talks with the Pacers overshadowed the expected cut to the grants it makes. The board cut 13 percent from cultural tourism, the Arts Council of Indianapolis and Indiana Black Expo. It exempted from the cuts the Finance Committee's recommendation to also cut 13 percent from the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership.

                  Dave Lawrence, vice president of the Arts Council, said he appreciated the difficult situation facing the CIB but reminded the board that the arts also contribute to the city's vitality and $52 million in taxes. "As we’re talking about the Pacers and how to save Downtown, we also have to talk about the arts,” he said.
                  This is the first time I've heard extensive comment from the city side of the equation. It certainly sounds like the CIB is trying to lay the groundwork for picking up the operations of Conseco.

                  Also, as I've mentioned before, I firmly believe that contraction is in the future for the NBA. Memphis has spent years looking for a buyer, and that is very troublesome for the valuation of many of the teams in the league.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                    Originally posted by Ivan Renko View Post
                    Reducing salaries is the other edge of the sword--if you cut salaries substantially, then players would be more inclined to make the jump to Europe. A solid NBA player could easily get 2 million euro with no tax obligation and living expenses covered by a euroleague team. This is basically the equivalent of a $4.3 million a year NBA salary. If you cut salaries 20%, there is a real chance a $4.5 million a year guy now making $3.6 million will leave. Granted, this doesn't mean that 40 or 50 guys are suddenly going to bolt, but you could see the wealthiest dozen or so euroleague teams each poach a mid-tier NBA player. Depth would definitely suffer.

                    Europe is definitely feeling the economic effects as well, but not nearly as badly as we are (yet at least). When you throw in the fact that euroleague revenues are growing faster than league revenues (with the game being less mature with more catching up to do over there), the long-term depth issue 5-10 years out may be even more pronounced.
                    Great post. Losing a few players is one thing, but losing 40 to 50 solid players would drastically affect competition.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                      Originally posted by Ivan Renko View Post
                      Reducing salaries is the other edge of the sword--if you cut salaries substantially, then players would be more inclined to make the jump to Europe. A solid NBA player could easily get 2 million euro with no tax obligation and living expenses covered by a euroleague team. This is basically the equivalent of a $4.3 million a year NBA salary. If you cut salaries 20%, there is a real chance a $4.5 million a year guy now making $3.6 million will leave. Granted, this doesn't mean that 40 or 50 guys are suddenly going to bolt, but you could see the wealthiest dozen or so euroleague teams each poach a mid-tier NBA player. Depth would definitely suffer.

                      Europe is definitely feeling the economic effects as well, but not nearly as badly as we are (yet at least). When you throw in the fact that euroleague revenues are growing faster than league revenues (with the game being less mature with more catching up to do over there), the long-term depth issue 5-10 years out may be even more pronounced.
                      I think this is overblown. The poaching last summer was greatly supported by two things: the strong Euro and high oil revenue (at least on the part of some of the Russian teams that were sniffing around).

                      Oil revenues have dropped precipitously, and the dollar has strengthened against the Euro. At the time of Josh Childress' signing with Olympiakos, the Euro was the rough equivalent of $1.58. As of this morning, it's about $1.27.

                      That means that if Childress' contract were signed today, for 3 yrs, $32.5mm, it would Olympiakos 25.6mm Euro, instead of the 20.6mm Euro at signing. The same Euro contract would only be worth $26.2mm.

                      If the contract was signed in Euros, then Josh Childress is staring being paid several million US dollars less than he thought he was going to get. If it was signed in US dollars, then Olympiakos is looking at as much as 5mm Euro in translation losses over the length of the contract.

                      One side or the other is going to feel considerably burned.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                        Originally posted by ToasterBusVIP View Post
                        For one, I don't understand why Pacers Sports & Ent. doesn't schedule more events at Conseco? I mean I know they have concerts during the winter, and also the WWE is having events there more frequently, but it seems like during the summer the place just sits there empty most of the time.

                        Here is the schedule of events from last August. Other than WWE's big pay per view event, what else did they bring in? Women of Faith? Joyce Meier ministries? And two Fever games?

                        http://www.consecofieldhouse.com/eve...393F2832952DE0
                        yeh, 8 out of 31 days is not cutting it. they had a full 2 weeks without anything at all.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                          Maybe the Pacers should move to the Wigwam in Anderson so Indiana can save their NBA team and the nations largest high school basketball stadium at the same time. Operating costs would be cheaper than Conseco and the Pacers can't give away enough tickets to "sell" out games, so they should move to a smaller stadium up the road for the time being.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                            Originally posted by switch View Post
                            Maybe the Pacers should move to the Wigwam in Anderson so Indiana can save their NBA team and the nations largest high school basketball stadium at the same time. Operating costs would be cheaper than Conseco and the Pacers can't give away enough tickets to "sell" out games, so they should move to a smaller stadium up the road for the time being.

                            This is reasonable, but not realistic. The Pacers will still be obligated to stay at Conseco for years. Renegotiating the terms of the contract isn't the same as negating it.


                            EDIT: When I say, "reasonable," I don't mean I think it has been thoroughly reasoned. It is not likely the NBA would allow a franchise to play in a high school gym or that the players union would agree.


                            The NBA needs to reckon with the way it is splitting its own market by making television so attractive that it drives down ticket sales. I
                            Last edited by Putnam; 03-10-2009, 02:52 PM.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                              New Castle has a Fieldhouse they can use.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: CIB Meeting about Conseco Operating Expenses

                                Memo to Pacers and Simons, open your books and we can talk.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X