The Spirits of St. Louis owners want MORE money from the Pacers
The Spirits of St. Louis owners want MORE money from the Pacers
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...
This is off topic from the lockout news or any discussion about it really, but as far as that deal they have with the spirits is there any way out of that to where they can just take some legal hit for refusal to pay anything pay whatever fines that would entail and be done? surely it's better than continue to hemmorhage money to a nonexistant franchise.
Yeah i'm sure if they could have figured a way to get out of it and cut their losses somehow they would have figured it out by now. Otherwise you probably wouldn't have seen these owners just kind of throw their hands up in the air, give up, and pay year after year.
The Silna brothers already benefit from the smartest sports transaction in history. Don't be pushing your luck boys.
On a side note, has anyone else noticed that NBATv hasn't shown many games involving the ABA merger squads? I honestly can only recall one or two Denver games on there, maybe one Nets game from 93, and then the Pacer games they've shown, and thats it.
Last edited by Sandman21; 11-22-2011 at 11:04 PM.
"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel
"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca
The thing is, with contractual law there can be an issue if a contract is TOO one-sided (including issues with contracts that don't end).
I've always wondered why this contract didn't trip that type of standard. But you'd think at the costs involved it's either iron clad or there's some poison pill for challenging it that would make the risk greater than the reward.
I'm surprised that one of the teams, if not all, don't get together and say 'no more payments' and do whatever is necessary to get out from under the burden. And fight it to the end.
That they don't again speaks to the iron clad nature of the deal. Or maybe the teams feel obligated to uphold the terms even if it's went far overboard any reasonable expectations of either side when the agreement was signed.
The lack of challenges amazes me. It's that blatantly well-written that it's not even worth a challenge in court?
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, thatís teamwork."
If I recall correctly, the Pacers could have bought out the contract in the 80s for something like 3 million and they refused. Anyone else remember this? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I was reading about that earlier. It was the NBA offering $5 million. The Spirits wanted $8 million and the NBA said no.
From this article:
You & I both know that financially they are better off with the deal they have but that would be almost impossible to prove in court.
No, this contract has been iron clad and the Pacers (as well as the other three ABA teams) have tried in the past (& failed) to end this thing.
Seems surreal, but it also sounds legitimate.
As wrong as Madoff was, I am glad that he took a lot of the Silnas' money.
Unfortunately for the Silnas', their pressing for this has come at a very inopportune time. They may well force the existing franchises that owe this money to be dissolved and reconstituted elsewhere to relieve the burden going forward. At the very least, it has to play a small part in the hard line stance of some owners regarding the lockout, and this only serves to reinforce that IMO.
**** 'em. IMO, they have been more than well compensated already and shouldn't get another dime from that deal.
I wonder what they would want now to break the contract?
"Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. Ö You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."
In 1982, asking for $8 million would have sounded like asking for over $200 million today.
Their share wouldn't have been anywhere near $3mm per year in 1982. They were still showing weeknight finals games on tape delay in 1982.
I know the Association doesn't care if the ABA refgugees have to pay, but it always seemed like theleague would have been active in trying to get rid of this inequity at each expansion.
It seems crazy to me that the Mavs, Heat, etc., entered the league without chipping in on this cost. If they really feel deprived at not having a franchise, the Hornets would be a fair exchange to end this stupid deal.
"It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."
----------------- Reggie Miller
Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
It's probably not likely, too many issues. Like, do you allow them to move it to St Louis and call it Spirits? It's a potential PR hit.
Also, what's the Hornets worth? NBA paid 300 mil for it, but considering close to 200 mil was debt assumption, it's really a 100-150 mil franchise. I assume the debt is still there, and you'd have to shave it off. That's ~50 mil hit for Pacers and each of the other 3.
Also, how do you compensate the other 25 owners who have a piece in Hornets atm? That's potentially even more $ from the Pacers.
Still, at some point someone has to find a resolution, it can't just last forever.
This is a case of greed, plain and simple.
There is no reason whatsoever for plaintiffs to be paid indefinitely from an organization that has paid them their rightful "local broadcast fees" as the structured settlement originally called for. (I remember reading about this case a few years back and if memory serves me correctly, that was the jest of the matter - a percentage of the local broadcasting revenue, not cable, not international games, etc.)
What's very clear to me is that the plantiffs are trying to use this "open-ended revenue agreement" to recoup their losses from the revenue they lost in the Berney Madoff ponzi scheme. I say, "tough ***t!!!" That's what happens when you take investment risks!!!
If I were Herb Simon (or is it Mel who owns the team now?), I'd give serious consideration to folding the Pacers and bring them back just to make the original lawsuit is void because the team disbanded then make the argument the any new claims by the plantiffs are null and void.
This non-expiration of payments crap is just that - CRAP! No one should be allowed to get paid indefinitely in this way! Even lawsuits against large corporations with big financial settlements in the hundreds of millions of dollars have an end-point for their payouts.
This is ridiculous!!!
Last edited by NuffSaid; 11-23-2011 at 01:25 PM.