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

Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

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

  • Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

    In 1983, at the urging of then mayor of Indianapolis Bill Hudnut, the brothers Mel and Herb Simon bought our beloved Pacers, and with that decision and with the help of others along the way began a revitalization and rejuvanation of downtown Indianapolis that continues today. There is little doubt that these Indiana loyalists and business titans helped usher in a future that made Indianapolis a destination spot for sports entities around the country and even the world. Without them, the landscape of sports in the Hoosier state would be much different today I believe.

    27 years later, Indianapolis is a different place, and the NBA landscape is much different as well. Time waits for no one, and it hasn't waited for the Pacers owners. Mel Simon is gone now, and his brother soldiers on owning a team that once was a labor of love between two close siblings in the prime of life, but now just must feel like a burden. Hemorraging money, dwarfed by another sports franchise right down the street, a small market team in a struggling league, surrounded by a once rabid fan base that is now mostly infected with apathy. Add to that an economic downturn and a society that in general is less patient and more demanding for results, trapped in a system that makes making those type of quick turnarounds more difficult than ever. Doing this alone at his age must make our owner wonder why he is doing this.

    Herb Simon has no family members interested in continuing the legacy. His nephew David has never been a big fan or involved with the sports franchise, instead focusing his talents and interests elsewhere. Herb is in his 70's now, and he must know by now as he looks at a life nearing sunset that the team he owns needs a solid future than he cannot provide for it in perpetuity. Loyal to the land that he truly loves, there is no doubt in my mind that Herb will never ever move the Pacers to another location....I believe him and the others when he makes statements to that effect.

    But that doesn't mean that he won't sell the team to someone else. Assuming that the Pacers staying in Indianapolis is as important to him now as it was in 1983, I think we can infer some other basic ideas I have to be true.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    I believe that Simon is greasing the skids to make the Pacers look more attractive for a prospective buyer that would keep them in Indianapolis. When you look at all moves and decisions both basketball and business related from here on out, I recommend looking at them through that prizm instead of how you may normally judge them. It is for this reason that I have alot of trouble complaining much about what Bird does on a day to day basis....I expect there is alot more going on and many more limitations set on Bird than we all know about. For instance, I believe that Bird would likely fire O'Brien if it were up to him, but that is not being approved from above, as it would mess up slightly the financial plan in our owner's mind.

    1. If you had a plan to sell the team, wouldn't it be smart to cut payroll as much as you could to make your team more attractive to a potential buyer?

    Of course it would! A new owner would want to be able to buy it with as much of a clear balance sheet as possible. Both from a business standpoint and a basketball one, you'd not want to inherit a bunch of long term committments to players and personnel that you didn't choose yourself.

    The Pacers will have their payroll drastically reduced after this next season, as over $30,000,000 of payroll I believe will be eliminated with the expiration of salary committments of our highly paid veterans Ford, Foster, Murphy, and Dunleavy.

    The Pacers scouts, assistant coaches, head coach Jim O'Brien, and President Larry Bird will all have their contracts up as well, enabling a new owner to start fresh with his own people from a management and organizational standpoint. This is exactly what you'd do if you wanted to make your team look as attractive as possible to a potential buyer.

    2. If you were planning to sell the team but have it stay in Indianapolis, wouldn't you also want to get as attractive of a stadium deal as possible?

    The Pacers playing hardball with the Capital Improvement Board is absolutely the right thing to do from their perspective. A potential new owner doesn't want to be hamstrung with a bad lease and lots of expenses he can't control, you'd as a seller want to make it as easy as possible for a buyer to look at his new potential investment as a great opportunity, so doing the hard work for him now only makes sense.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    What are some other moves you might make if you were the Simon's and wanted to discreetly get the team sold without having to openly put it on the market?

    One thing you'd want to do is try to cultivate a buyer who you truly knew would keep the team here and represent the best of the city. How could you do that?

    First you'd no doubt be working with the league office, and particularly commissioner Stern, to identify and convince whomever you deem worthy that this would be a good thing to do from both a business and civic standpoint. You would definitely want to sell to an owner that was stable financially, had deep Indiana roots, and that would be approved by the league.

    Speaking of Stern, he could really help us with this St Louis Spirits/ABA problem. I know all of those who read PD know what I am talking about. Wouldn't it be a huge burden off of our franchise if the league itself (out of tv revenue or some other source) helped pay that ransom that our team and the three other franchises have to pay each year? I actually look for that to happen in someway soon. Not sure how exactly, but I think Stern will find a way to help some of the small market ABA franchises somehow ease that burden.

    Next, as discussed earlier, you'd want to make the product as debt free as possible, so the new potential investor would look at owning us as a greater opportunity financially than it might look presently. You'd want to get as many new sponsors and income flow going as you could as well. You'd want to have as few long term financial committments as possible.

    Finally, you might consider selling a PART ownership to your new investor, both to alleviate the present day financial burden from yourself, and to sort of ease in whomever this ends up being to eventually becoming sole owner upon your death, or whenever you see fit to finally give up the reins entirely.

    This "owner in waiting"/investor scenario has yet to take place yet that we are aware of, but I think in the next few months or so it could begin to happen. A slow turnover process in our ownership makes too much sense to not happen. Depending on who it ends up being, this could be one of the greatest things that happens to our beloved Pacers, or it could be one of the worst....in this, we just have to trust. That is why it so important to do these things and make decisions at such a deliberate pace. Whether this person actually becomes a part owner before buying in fully remains to be seen, but I definitely think there is a person out there preparing as we speak to own us.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    To me, this is the coup de grace of the much discussed "3 year plan". First, rid the team of it's bad image players.

    Secondly, establish a clear chain of command with an Indiana legend running the basketball side, and a true businessman and mover/shaker running the business side in Jim Morris.

    Thirdly, continue to purge as much debt from the franchise as possible whole trying to remain somewhat competitive enough to keep a flicker of interest going.

    Fourth, only make small long term investments in people, or if you make a big committment financially to someone, make sure it is someone really worth it (Granger)

    Fifth, solve the major business problems with the city involving the fieldhouse.

    Basically, we look on track to get all of that accomplished by April of 2011. So next April, we will be an extremely attractive franchise to own for a man who loves basketball and has deep ties to Indianapolis: we will have alot of roster spots open and plenty of cash available to spend, whoever this is will likely have a good idea from the commissioner what the future outlook for a CBA business model will look like, whoever this new owner could be will be able to not pay any severance pay to former employees and will be able to bring in fully his own people to run the team. And this person will have a favorable lease on Conseco Fieldhouse, the best venue in the NBA.

    On top of that, he will be viewed as a savior to a beloved franchise, if the story is sold the right way, gaining much needed good will that he will need as the years go by.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anybody want to guess a name?

    I think Jeff Smulyan makes alot of sense. A very rich man, Smulyan owns Emmis Broadcasting, among other companies around the globe. A Shelbyville native, he has had a long interest in sports and in fact did own the Seattle Mariners for a short time many years ago. I believe Smulyan is from Shelbyville, and I think he actually still lives there.

    Smulyan would be a new generation of owner, one that is media savvy and more sports loving that the old school hands off style we've had for 27 years now. Not as wealthy as the Simons, Smulyan would likely be more involved and caring in day to day operations of the team, which could be good or bad I suppose.

    I could definitely see a scenario where Larry Bird remains and has a small ownership part of the team as well, along with some various other small investors to help foot the bill.

    New ownership is coming to Pacer land eventually. Tomorrow waits for no one, not even a billionaire named Simon. As the true franchise diehards, we need to think about what this might mean for our team both short and long term. I guarantee you, what Herbert Simon does this spring and summer is alot more important and vital than anything Larry Bird and Jim O'Brien do.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

    Well written, as always.

    I too have been thinking a Smulyan/Bird ownership group could be a possibility. I don't know if they have a relationship or not, but they are two names that make sense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

      There was a quote from Bird's press conference that I interpreted as a signal of this - he mentions that by the end of next season pretty much everybody in the Pacers organization will be out of contract except a core of young players. Let me look it up:

      All the coaches, all the scouts, myself, everybody will be up (after next season). Herb (Simon) will have the money for free agency and a core group of young guys so that's a decision he'll have to make. Whether we like it or not we'll have to live with it.

      So yeah, if they strike a favourable deal in regards to the arena, they'll be an attractive franchise for a buyer.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

        A good summary of the situation. Re the flickering interest of formerly rabid Pacer fans, I've talked with friends who still live in Indy and consider themselves lapsed Pacer fans over the past year about their waning interest. It's not that you can't be a Colt and Pacer fan simultaneously, but I think they fall into the category of "distracted". So many basketball fans in Indy have lost their way and have no idea of who's on the Pacer roster outside of Granger, Hansborough, and possibly DunMurph and Hibbert. They have little or no idea of what the Pacers are up to. But when I bring up how precarious the Pacers' financial situation is and the real possibility of Indy losing them, they seem genuinely surprised. Here's hoping that we can recapture these folks and not have to wait until Manning retires to "re-enlist" them as Pacer fans. The 5 point plan as outlined by T-Bird sounds great, but will it be enough for the lapsed fans?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

          While this all sounds good, some things don't quite point to it...

          1) In the NBA, if you are serious about it, is player payroll really a completely discretionary cost? It seems to me that, while being over the cap is a handicap, being far under it means you probably aren't fielding a team that is competitive - or, at least, that will remain well under the cap when the current underpaid players need to be paid better in order to stay. I think franchises find themselves WAY under the cap only every so often, and I think the franchises that are constantly a rotation player salary or more under the cap aren't really getting the best personnel.

          This would mean that savings on player salaries (even, as some snidely infer, to make up the $15M operating cost of the Fieldhouse) is false savings in the long run. New ownership would have to be aware that a current low payroll is not an ongoing state of affairs.

          2) The renegotiation of the Conseco operations costs was not driven by the current environment but by the coming due of a clause written before 1999. An intelligent business takes advantage of that clause in ANY situation other than one where it would be somehow clear they could end up paying MORE of the costs, which is hard when they were already paying all of them.

          3) The steps outlined are steps required for any business to put itself on sound financial footing, whether or not it is planning to be bought out or simply keep operating.

          4) The more attractive the profit potential of the Pacers, the more likely they are to be bring a buyer who wants to move them, because the penalty clause is affordable (leveraged, if you will) by the now-profitable team operations. So, just like a good company getting rid of its debt and finding itself the victim of a leveraged buyout, this does not necessarily mean the field of buyers would be limited to people who would actually keep the team in Indy - remember the empty promises that were made to Seattle.

          5) If the team remains merely competitive (or less, see this year), the local fan base becomes more disaffected. A local buyer would likely find this a turn-off rather than an incentive. I don't know how many Simons there are out there that will do what they did in 83 for a team with the record at that time.

          While I think it is true that most of these actions would make it easier to find a local buyer, I think they are quite independent of that thought process. Simplicity suggests that getting the franchise healthy from personnel and financial perspectives is the pure goal, and once they are healthy they become something Herb can enjoy for many more years rather than having to sell immediately.
          BillS

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

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

            Originally posted by RomanGabriel View Post
            So many basketball fans in Indy have lost their way and have no idea of who's on the Pacer roster outside of Granger, Hansborough, and possibly DunMurph and Hibbert.?
            I don't worry about them, I worry about the ones who clearly think the current team is still full of guys shooting up downtown and being pulled over for passengers burning funny herbs. Your guys will come around as soon as anything positive starts to happen. The other ones have to correct their cranio-rectal inversions first.
            BillS

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

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              1) In the NBA, if you are serious about it, is player payroll really a completely discretionary cost? It seems to me that, while being over the cap is a handicap, being far under it means you probably aren't fielding a team that is competitive - or, at least, that will remain well under the cap when the current underpaid players need to be paid better in order to stay. I think franchises find themselves WAY under the cap only every so often, and I think the franchises that are constantly a rotation player salary or more under the cap aren't really getting the best personnel.

              This would mean that savings on player salaries (even, as some snidely infer, to make up the $15M operating cost of the Fieldhouse) is false savings in the long run. New ownership would have to be aware that a current low payroll is not an ongoing state of affairs.
              i don't think tbird is saying that a low payroll will attract a buyer. rather, it's the blank slate - cap space for the new management to fill as they like. most importantly, no overpaid players with long contracts hanging like millstones on the payroll.

              as to your other point, i guess you're right, these are steps any sensible business would do. so it might not necessarily mean anything. i agree with tbird though that the timing of all these factors (simon's age, cleaning house, etc) make his inference quite possible.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                i don't think tbird is saying that a low payroll will attract a buyer. rather, it's the blank slate - cap space for the new management to fill as they like. most importantly, no overpaid players with long contracts hanging like millstones on the payroll.

                as to your other point, i guess you're right, these are steps any sensible business would do. so it might not necessarily mean anything. i agree with tbird though that the timing of all these factors (simon's age, cleaning house, etc) make his inference quite possible.

                Yes, that was my point exactly. We seem to be preparing ourselves to be more attractive to potential buyers, with our players cap situation just a nother part of a many pronged plan.

                I just think that we need to all keep our eye in the ball here. Mr. Simon is not a young man, and it appears the younger generations of Simons aren't interested in being involved with a sports franchise at all. A new owner of the Pacers is inevitable, and there are alot of things happening that lead me to believe it could happen sooner rather than later.

                We need to hope I am right and a plan is at least somewhat in place for another prominant local owner to come to the forefront, because if not we are going to be a prime target for deep pocketed and aggressive cities, such as Kansas City and Las Vegas.

                If that happens, draft arguments and rants about Jim O'Brien will be the least of our concerns.

                Tbird

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

                  Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post

                  We need to hope I am right and a plan is at least somewhat in place for another prominant local owner to come to the forefront, because if not we are going to be a prime target for deep pocketed and aggressive cities, such as Kansas City and Las Vegas.
                  Kansas City can't even fill the stands for its two pro franchises, two of the worst in sports at the moment. Sure they have the Sprint Center but the KC metro area isn't much bigger than Indy's.

                  ANd if any team is moving to Vegas, it will be the Kings, for obvious reasons.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis: A discussion of Pacers ownership, now and in the future

                    Here is an old article I found from Feb 2000 about Bird's interest in buying the Pacers. The part about being able to get a group together in a day was about the Celtics but I wonder if it is true for the Pacers too.

                    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/sp...l?pagewanted=1

                    IN THE NEWS: INDIANAPOLIS
                    IN THE NEWS: INDIANAPOLIS; Bird Doubts Being An Owner
                    Published: February 22, 2000
                    Sign in to Recommend
                    Twitter
                    Sign In to E-Mail

                    Print

                    Larry Bird, one of the greatest players in Boston Celtics history, said yesterday in Indianapolis that he would prefer owning the Indiana Pacers.

                    But Bird, who has announced plans to leave as coach of the Pacers at the end of the season, said he did not anticipate becoming an owner of either team.

                    ''The Pacers are not for sale, the Celtics are not for sale,'' he said. ''I know that. I knew that eight years ago that they weren't for sale. You can't buy something that's not for sale.''

                    The Boston Globe reported Sunday that Bird had indicated interest in buying the Celtics.

                    ''I could get people together to buy the team in a day,'' Bird told the newspaper. The Celtics' owner, Paul Gaston, has said publicly that the team is not for sale.

                    Bird has been offered an executive position in the Pacers' front office.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X