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

ABA TV Deal now dead

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    ABA TV Deal now dead

    Please delete or merge if this has been posted.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...nba/?eref=sihp

    Jon Wertheim>INSIDE THE NBA

    Best sports deal ever? How the Silnas outsmarted the NBA

    There was no official death notice. The documents are sealed, there will be no autopsy. This will have to pass as the obituary. But after lingering on its deathbed, the great golden goose of the sports world was finally killed off last month. The cause of death: a complex and confidential settlement agreement. The chief survivors, brothers Ozzie and Daniel Silna, surely mourn, but they must take solace knowing that their $1 million investment in a sports team that went out of business nearly 40 years ago turned into more than $1 billion.

    In 1974 the Silnas, East Coast garment magnates, bought an ABA franchise and moved it to St. Louis. The Spirits were a lovably dysfunctional collective that lasted only two seasons, but they spawned enough lore to merit a 30 for 30 documentary on ESPN last fall.

    At the time, though, the team was not exactly a booming business. "We would have Dr. J or George Gervin come to town," says Bob Costas, the team's play-by-play announcer, "and even then, you'd look around and there might be 1,800 fans." At the end of the 1975-76 campaign the entire ABA was, as unofficial league historian Terry Pluto put it, "running out of gas." There were only seven teams left, and in the off-season four joined the NBA -- the Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, New York Nets and San Antonio Spurs. The Virginia Squires simply folded. The owner of the Kentucky Colonels, John Y. Brown, accepted a $3.3 million payout to close up shop. (By decade's end Brown had become the Bluegrass State's governor.)

    Top 10 dunks of NBA season | Honorable mention | Top 10 fines: Shoelaces and soda spills

    That left the Spirits. The franchise was unwanted by the NBA, but the aggrieved Silnas were unwilling to take a lump-sum payment to go away. With the help of their lawyer, Donald Schupak, the brothers cut a deal: The four ABA teams decamping to the NBA would make a one-time payment to the Silnas of $2.23 million, and they would pay the brothers one-seventh of their national broadcast revenues in perpetuity.

    All first-year law students worth their highlighters know the danger of contracts without termination periods. The NBA's outside counsel -- including a young lawyer, David Stern -- saw this and tried to indemnify the league from disputes that might arise from the contract.

    Schupak countered with a masterstroke: He inserted an intentionally broad definition of broadcast revenues, a clause that could one day make the contract applicable to distribution channels unimaginable in 1976. "I was blunt during these discussions," Schupak wrote in a 2012 legal declaration. "Rather than narrow the definition of TV revenues, I insisted instead that we add a new sentence [to] emphasize that this was a broad definition that could not be evaded or made obsolete."


    The Silnas signed a deal in '76 that entitled them to a cut of the NBA's broadcast revenues in perpetuity.
    Damian Dovargane/AP
    Even so, the notion of significant NBA broadcast revenue was quixotic. The ABA never had a national television deal. And those were the days when the NBA Finals aired on tape delay after the local news at 11. There was no NBA League Pass or NBA.tv.

    The surviving ABA teams signed the contract -- mostly to rid themselves of these nuisance brothers -- and the deal became the sports equivalent of Peter Minuit paying $24 for the island of Manhattan. According to court documents obtained by SI, the brothers received a total of $521,749 in 1980, the first year the contract vested. By '86-87 the annual payout eclipsed $1 million. By 1999-2000 it eclipsed $10 million. For 2010-11, the last season for which records are available, the Silnas made $17.5 million. After last season they had made more than $300 million cumulatively -- with no end in sight.

    The Fundamentals: Why Blazers, Grizzlies are so different

    The Silnas' arrangement has been called the best sports deal of the century, but that may be an under-statement. "Keep in mind, they're not paying player salaries or leasing arenas. What was their margin?" says Scott Rosner, a professor of sports business at Wharton. "The moral: Never give away the rights to something with an unknown future value."

    In 2009 the Silnas brothers invoked Schupak's broad revenue definition and filed suit seeking more money, arguing that they were entitled to digital and international rights as well as U.S. TV revenues. (This was the same year that one of the Silnas' financial managers, Bernard Madoff, pleaded guilty to running a Ponzi scheme, depleting the brothers' fortune.) When the case went before U.S. district court judge Loretta Preska, she encouraged both sides to settle. This was fine by the four teams -- they had been trying for years to get out of the contract. And with another NBA television deal on the horizon with the expiration of the current one in 2016 -- "Could be close to $2 billion a year, if Adam [Silver] does his job," says one NBA executive -- the Silnas' windfall would swell to $36 million annually.

    Why would Ozzie and Daniel, now ages 81 and 69, respectively, settle this year? Neither the brothers nor Schupak would comment beyond confirming an "amicable settlement," and the agreement is confidential. But according to a source familiar with the settlement finalized last month, "They didn't come cheap." Multiple sources told SI that they were paid in excess of $500 million and have a small stake in the revenue the former ABA teams will earn from the new TV contract. Perpetuity may have ended, but their total haul will exceed $1 billion.

    One among many, there's a great St. Louis Spirits story about Marvin (Bad News) Barnes, the team's best player and a peerless head case: After a game, the Spirits were preparing to depart on an 8 p.m. flight home from Louisville. Accounting for the change of time zones, the flight was to land at 7:56. Barnes saw the schedule, panicked and booked a rental car instead, reasoning, "I ain't gettin' on no time machine!"

    Time travel was beyond the Silnas. But give them credit for glimpsing the future, envisioning the virtually limitless revenue that would come from sports media.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

    It would be nice to know how much of the settlement has to be paid by the Pacers.
    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

    • #3
      Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

      I am shocked that there was a settlement at this point... The 2016 TV deal could be a game changer for the NBA...
      Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        It would be nice to know how much of the settlement has to be paid by the Pacers.
        Evidently the Pacers had to throw in their basketball ability and manhood to get the deal done.....now we know the reason for the current collapse.
        I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

          I always thought the Marvin Barnes story happened with the Pacers. Maybe not.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

            except it's not

            Multiple sources told SI that they were paid in excess of $500 million and have a small stake in the revenue the former ABA teams will earn from the new TV contract.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              except it's not
              Maybe it's a one-time lump sum from the first year of that deal?

              I'm guessing that they made the deal so that they could control what happens to their money before they die. It could be a part of their Estate planning.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

                Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                This was the same year that one of the Silnas' financial managers, Bernard Madoff, pleaded guilty to running a Ponzi scheme, depleting the brothers' fortune.
                Hey, Bernie did something right!
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

                  I just hope to not have to ever hear about, or be angered by this
                  wanton thievery ever again.

                  Go to hell Silna brothers.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

                    Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                    I just hope to not have to ever hear about, or be angered by this
                    wanton thievery ever again.

                    Go to hell Silna brothers.
                    I love the Pacers, but the NBA got played by these guys, they hit the ultimate jackpot because the NBA didn't believe enough in itself at the time.
                    "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

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

                      Is this ABA TV Deal in reference to that Sweetheart deal that the remaining ABA Teams had when they joined the NBA?
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

                        From the thread a few months ago, isn't there supposed to be a partnership between the Silnas and the four franchises that gets some kind of share in TV rights and possibly other revenue sources as well?

                        IIRC, it sounded like the Silnas still would be making out like bandits AND become involved in the NBA in some capacity.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

                          Ding dong.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Is this ABA TV Deal in reference to that Sweetheart deal that the remaining ABA Teams had when they joined the NBA?
                            Which part of that deal was sweetheart for the remaining teams? Cash to buy into the league, no first round picks for 2 years (as I recall), no TV money for the first 5 years - the Pacers almost went under, I believe the other teams had serious issues as well.
                            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

                            • #15
                              Re: ABA TV Deal now dead

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              Which part of that deal was sweetheart for the remaining teams? Cash to buy into the league, no first round picks for 2 years (as I recall), no TV money for the first 5 years - the Pacers almost went under, I believe the other teams had serious issues as well.
                              I believe Sweetheart Deal refers to the Silna's deal with the teams... Not the NBA and the teams...
                              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

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X