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

Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

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

  • #16
    Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post

    Damn you Indy, I hate the fact you get to host the NCAA FF every 5 years!!! What a stupid agreement.
    Why? Jealous?

    Indy is a perfect host city for the Final Four and with it being the location of the NCAA headquarters they understand this as well as anyone.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

      Originally posted by travmil View Post
      Actually, the RCA Dome WAS (and still is) costing you money for not using it.
      I'm aware of that. Another reason I didn't want LOS built.

      Originally posted by idioteque View Post
      I sympathize with a lot of what you're saying in principle, but it's pure fantasy. The RCA Dome was no longer adequate to host an NFL team, much less the NCAA Final Four. Not in today's world. With the popularity of the NFL and college basketball today, we would have lost the Colts and the Final Four in the next couple of years to someone had we not built LOS. Someone else would have been willing to compel their taxpayers to pay the bill and build a much better stadium in terms of the NFL, while the Final Four would have moved to an NFL city that already has a stadium like Arizona, Detroit, Houston, etcetera. The RCA Dome was the smallest stadium in football and I believe had the least number of luxury boxes.

      I'm not a fan of public funding for athletic stadiums at all, but that's my realist take on things.
      I'm assuming that Lambeau Field, Soldier Field, and Arrowhead Stadium didn't start out at 70,000+ seats with multiple rings of luxury boxes. Now, because of the dome, RCA Dome's seating capacity wouldn't be expandable in all likelihood. But the stadium could have been renovated to include more suites.

      Or, if LOS has to be built, then perhaps more private funding and a better rev share needs to be implemented so that the city isn't essentially funding the Colts for the next 2-3 decades. I actually didn't have such a huge problem with the building of LOS, my problem was with the deal struck, as mentioned previously. I believe the Colts get to wet their beak on the concessions from all the Final Four games, and yet the city pays all the upkeep during downtime. So, it's solely on the CIB to find people to hold events, pay any shortfalls, and the Colts pay a very small lease, which they probably recoup a decent percentage of from the revenue they see from non-Colts events.

      In fact, that's the part that really gets me. The Colts get revenue when someone else holds an event in a building that they don't own. I read something that during Colts games, if you buy an $8 dollar beer, the city pays the Colts $12 (150% revenue sharing). How is that fair?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

        Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
        Why? Jealous?

        Indy is a perfect host city for the Final Four and with it being the location of the NCAA headquarters they understand this as well as anyone.
        Sarcasm.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

          After seeing a 3hr wait, just to get inside Hooters during the FF weekend, I have zero sympathy for anyone who complains about the cost of LOS to the city of Indianapolis.

          None. Not one single bit.

          The amount of revenue, just for that one weekend let alone all the other events that get held there, is HUGE. Absolutely massive.

          Every eatery was packed, every bar had lines of over an hour long, and I heard you couldn't find a hotel room from Indy to Anderson.

          The added cost of LOS on sales tax is the price of doing business in order to keep a billion dollar company (essentially) in town. If you don't like it, then move to a place that doesn't have a NFL franchise.

          I'm sorry that you don't want to enjoy the place, but the benefits of LOS far outweigh the bad.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

            Originally posted by Eindar View Post
            I'm aware of that. Another reason I didn't want LOS built.

            I'm assuming that Lambeau Field, Soldier Field, and Arrowhead Stadium didn't start out at 70,000+ seats with multiple rings of luxury boxes. Now, because of the dome, RCA Dome's seating capacity wouldn't be expandable in all likelihood. But the stadium could have been renovated to include more suites.
            Not that I disagree with the rest of your post but the above was inaccurate. Soldier Field originally had 74,000 seats back in 1926 and has hosted football games with upwards of 150,000 people.

            They actually reduced the number of seats back in 1971 to 57,000 for the Bears and then increased the capacity to 66,950 in 1981. When the Newly renovated Soldier Field was reopened in 2003 the number of seats was reduced again to 61,000 with 133 suites.

            Lambeu had a total seating capacity of 60,890 before their renovation and can hold 71,000 (Approx.) now. They had 198 suites and club level seats before their latest renovation.

            Both Soldier Field and Lambeau Field were renovated using public financing. Soldier Field was 100% financed with public funds. Lambeau used about 55% public financing.

            http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/Gr...s/newindex.htm


            The RCA Dome could only hold 57,890 and had 104 suites but no club seating. It was a smaller arena than Lambeau and Soldier Field and although it was younger it had less suites than them.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

              Replacing the RCA dome with LOS also had a lot to do with the need to expand the convention center. It is not just about the Colts.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                After seeing a 3hr wait, just to get inside Hooters during the FF weekend, I have zero sympathy for anyone who complains about the cost of LOS to the city of Indianapolis.

                None. Not one single bit.

                The amount of revenue, just for that one weekend let alone all the other events that get held there, is HUGE. Absolutely massive.


                Does the average Indy resident benefit one iota from that revenue? I don't get any extra money in my pockets because of those events and neither do most other people. Sure it's nice for the waiters and the owners, but average Indy resident spends far more paying for the stadium via the 2% tax than they get in benefits from it.

                No one has a problem with the stadium itself. It's a beautiful stadium and is infinitely better than the RCA Dome. The problem many have with it is that it is maybe the most lopsided stadium deal in NFL history and was basically just a handout to a billionaire. That's what Indy is all about - fleecing the taxpayers when greedy billionaire's like the Simons or Irsay's throw a hissy fit. Indy is all about screwing the taxpayers so the well connected elite in this town can make out like bandits. The average joe doesn't get anything from this stuff.

                Irsay ended up paying 50 mil when all was said and done and the taxpayers footed the other 700 million. He uses the facility rent free, the taxpayers pay for maintenance, and he gets all revenues from non-Colts events. There is not a single other place in the country where you will find such a one-sided joke of a deal. It's not the stadium itself that ticks people off, it's that a greedy billionaire is making out like a bandit on the backs of taxpayers while only putting up a wussy 50 million of his own money for the deal. People have the right to be outraged. Bob Kraft put up like 300 million of his own money for Gillette stadium. Jerry Jones put up a big chunk of his fortune for the Cowboys stadium.

                If these stadiums were the huge money makers that they are made out to be, then why didn't Irsay put up more money? If the stadium makes the money we are led to believe, then Irsay would have invested more of his own money because he would have got it back in the long run, right? He wouldn't have needed to fleece the taxpayers. It's a joke. The whole stadium deal was set up so Irsay and the well-connected downtown elite with their nice six figure incomes could get even richer on the backs of the taxpayer.

                And it wasn't enough that Irsay was getting a stadium built on the backs of taxpayers. No, he had do demand a stupid retractable roof which is open one home game a year and was obviously completely unnecessary. But why wouldn't he demand it? It's easy to be greedy and reckless with money when it's the taxpayers and not your own. Since he gets all revenues from events at Lucas then he's obviously going to want the stadium to be as nice as it can possibly be.

                I'll never forget being at the Chiefs game last October when it was 80+ degrees with abundant sunshine as far as the eye could see. It was one of the warmest October days on record and there wasn't a cloud in sight. But the roof was closed. That one game in a nutshell describes the joke that the retractable roof is. A roof that cost about 75 million or roughly 10% of the stadium cost. That roof is downright criminal. And if you're going to spend all that money for a roof, at least spend a couple pennies more for a drainage system. If there's a chance that someone might spill a coke on the field then they won't open the roof.

                Indy is a place that will stop at nothing to screw taxpayers so billionaires like the Irsay's or Simons can stay rich. Meanwhile, the city has one of the worst school districts in the nation, miles and miles of dumpy decaying neighborhoods, parks that are closing, some of the worst roads I've ever seen (seriously, the roads in Indy have to be about the most beat up of any place in the nation. My car has got the hell beat out of it since moving there), and an awful murder/crime rate. There are better places to put this money than in the pockets of billionaires.

                There's this famous little place over at 16th and Georgetown that, to my knowledge, has never asked for an obscene taxpayer handout.
                Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-27-2011, 03:06 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Does the average Indy resident benefit one iota from that revenue? I don't get any extra money in my pockets because of those events and neither do most other people. Sure it's nice for the waiters and the owners, but average Indy resident spends far more paying for the stadium via the 2% tax than they get in benefits from it.
                  Directly? No. But it boosts the whole area's economy. It makes it a more desireable place for relocating companies, etc.

                  If you were in a field that provided a service, like hotels, resturants, bars, etc, then yes.

                  For a back story....

                  We went downtown for the saturday of FF weekend. We managed to get our way into Hooters without standing in line. A buddy and his family was already in who we were supposed to meet up with, so we just stood at their table and ordered drinks, and when a large table opened up (there was like 10 of us) we asked the waitress if we could just sit down and we would make sure she was compensated nicely for putting other people out. Yeah, I know not the nicest thing to do, but..... Anyways, we stayed there for almost 7 full hours. A few hours before tip, then stayed through half time of the Duke/WV game before we headed down to Cadillac Ranch.

                  All in all for that one day, I ended up spending about $400. My tips at Hooters alone was about $50 (we ended up having two), let alone all the tips I gave out after I was completely smashed at the bar.

                  I can only imagine how much waitresses made there that day. Or how much bartenders made. It had to be incredible.

                  While it might not have helped you directly, it helps the overall area's economy, and the workers that work services utilized by visitors.

                  Sure, that's only one weekend. But then combine in the fact that more fans get to go downtown to actually attend the games on Sundays, all the concerts that they hold there (Kenny Chesney has an all day concert with like 5-6 other acts) all the conventions, and once again Indy gets the FF once every 5 years.

                  LOS is worth every penny.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Directly? No. But it boosts the whole area's economy. It makes it a more desireable place for relocating companies, etc.

                    If you were in a field that provided a service, like hotels, resturants, bars, etc, then yes.

                    For a back story....

                    We went downtown for the saturday of FF weekend. We managed to get our way into Hooters without standing in line. A buddy and his family was already in who we were supposed to meet up with, so we just stood at their table and ordered drinks, and when a large table opened up (there was like 10 of us) we asked the waitress if we could just sit down and we would make sure she was compensated nicely for putting other people out. Yeah, I know not the nicest thing to do, but..... Anyways, we stayed there for almost 7 full hours. A few hours before tip, then stayed through half time of the Duke/WV game before we headed down to Cadillac Ranch.

                    All in all for that one day, I ended up spending about $400. My tips at Hooters alone was about $50 (we ended up having two), let alone all the tips I gave out after I was completely smashed at the bar.

                    I can only imagine how much waitresses made there that day. Or how much bartenders made. It had to be incredible.

                    While it might not have helped you directly, it helps the overall area's economy, and the workers that work services utilized by visitors.

                    Sure, that's only one weekend. But then combine in the fact that more fans get to go downtown to actually attend the games on Sundays, all the concerts that they hold there (Kenny Chesney has an all day concert with like 5-6 other acts) all the conventions, and once again Indy gets the FF once every 5 years.

                    LOS is worth every penny.

                    Oh, I definitely agree that a lot of people are helped by it, particularly in those big events. No doubt that there are a lot of people who are cleaning up during those big events. Though I still think that the average Indy resident spends more paying for it via the 2% tax than they receive from stadium benefits.

                    But the Final Four would have still been here had we kept the Dome. Like Eindar said, it wasn't going anywhere given that the NCAA headquarters are here.

                    I'm glad the stadium was built. I'd rather there be a LOS than no LOS. My main problem is that our billionaire owner held the city hostage and made out like a complete thief. Seriously, it's maybe the most lopsided deal stadium deal in American professional sports. Irsay should have put up more than 50 million dollars which is virtually nothing when the stadium cost 750 million (it's like 6% of the stadium cost). To put it in perspective, the roof cost more than Irsay's contribution was worth.

                    Indy residents have a right to be outraged at how this went down. It's not that people are anti-stadium (it's hard not to like that palace), it's that people are anti-fleecing the taxpayers so a cheap billionaire sports owner can make out like a complete bandit. Irsay gets all the revenues, uses the place rent-free, and doesn't pay for maintenance. Had he put up more money, he would have made it back in the long term anyway given that sweet deal. Instead, he gets even richer.
                    Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-27-2011, 03:47 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                      A quick fact check here... I thought the city DOES get a share of money from events in LOS and that it's only the Pacers that get ALL of the revenue generated in their stadium? Is that wrong? Have I forgotten something?
                      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


                      • #26
                        Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        A quick fact check here... I thought the city DOES get a share of money from events in LOS and that it's only the Pacers that get ALL of the revenue generated in their stadium? Is that wrong? Have I forgotten something?

                        I thought it was the other way around?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          I thought it was the other way around?
                          Unless something changed when the Pacers and the CIB managed to delay and work out whatever they worked out when the Pacers wanted the CIB to assume operating expenses then no, the Pacers AFAIK keep all event revenue (basketball or not).

                          I thought LOS was a 50/50 split for non-football revenue but there are probably some caveats and conditions with that.

                          I feel fairly confident in the Pacers part of that... I'm just not sure about the LOS side of things. Pretty sure... but wouldn't bet on it or anything...
                          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


                          • #28
                            Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                            Bball, you are indeed right. It is split 50/50.

                            Regardless, still an insanely lopsided deal that was near theft. Remember when the city had a 10 million dollar shortfall in funding of day to day operations of the stadium? Then remember how Irsay said a deal is a deal and put up or shut up? Yes, a billionaire who paid less than 10% of the cost of the stadium couldn't even pony up 10 million dollars to a desperate city that can't pave roads, has poor schools, bad crime, etc etc.

                            * Jim Irsay gets a share of any money you spend at the stadium, including food, beverage, memorabilia and parking.
                            * Irsay gets 100% of the game day ticket sales and half of the ticket sales from all non-game events.
                            * Any money spent on advertising at the stadium belongs to Irsay.
                            * Jim Irsay keeps every dime of the "sales of suites and club seats to corporations and the well-heeled."
                            * Irsay could make an additional $41 million a year above the $150 million or more his Colts have made in the RCA Dome.
                            * Irsay pays zero rent and pays none of the operating and maintenance expenses on the stadium.

                            http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2...taxpayers.html

                            Irsay also gets the money from the 121 million dollar naming rights on the public building.

                            It's not the stadium that bothers people. It's the border-line criminal way in which it was done. This is a public building funded by taxpayers, but we don't don't any of the money back. A billionaire is taking practically all the money generated from a building he paid practically nothing for and doesn't even have to lease. Many average Indy residents struggle to even pay for a game, and are hurt each time they eat. And those pennies add up for a lot of people.

                            The deal was a sham. The public doesn't get any money from the advertising revenues generated in a stadium they built. That money instead goes to a billionaire who paid a wussy 50 million. There isn't a single other professional sports city in the country where you will find a deal that is as lopsided as this.

                            This is a city that has awful roads, beat up sidewalks, one of the worst public school systems in the country, a pretty bad murder/violent crime rate, closing parks, etc etc etc.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 05-31-2011, 06:52 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                              Indianapolis can pave its roads and the crime isn't that bad.

                              The quality of IPS is more a product of the state reducing funding than anything the city has done.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tony Kornheiser vs Jim Irsay

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                                The deal was a sham. The public doesn't get any money from the advertising revenues generated in a stadium they built. That money instead goes to a billionaire who paid a wussy 50 million. There isn't a single other professional sports city in the country where you will find a deal that is as lopsided as this.
                                Except down the street at Conseco...

                                I agree with you except for one point... I don't really blame Irsay. The system is what the system is. It takes two to tango.

                                I think these sport palaces and the corporate welfare that goes with them need to be addressed at the federal level. It needs to be stopped. I think it's getting more clear by the day that most cities just cannot keep their hands out of the cookie jar when it comes to pro sports. At the state and local level nobody has the self-control to pass meaningful legislation to stop this kind of thing. It needs to be addressed not only in cities and states that have pro teams but also in cities that don't. Unless it's done on a federal level it just won't be done. Every city wants to keep their options open to snag the next pro team on the move. And every city with a pro team wants to have every possible goodie, tax break, etc in their pocket to offer.

                                Unfortunately, even at the federal level it's going to be hard to see anything done about it. Those people have to come home to their cities and states and live with the negatives that would come out if they suddenly looked to be 'against' the owners of the local pro team(s). There'd go the free tickets... the votes of the diehards... The campaign donations...

                                Maybe one day a fiscally responsible president will use his position to lead and argue against sporting palaces and corporate welfare and try and create a grassroots movement that would take some heat off the lawmakers... as well as put some pressure on them to act in ways to enact laws to keep local politicians' hands out of the taxpayers' cookie jar.

                                This is another one of those 'genie out of the bottle' problems... How do you get that genie back in the bottle?

                                The question I always ask is:
                                If Irsay had to fund Lucas Oil Stadium out of his own pocket do you think it would still have a gazillion dollar retractable roof??
                                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

                                Working...
                                X