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

Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

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

  • #16
    Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

    It's going to be tough to sell an NBA team to someone right now with a possible lockout looming in 2011.

    Ignore the Nets and 'Cats. New Jersey grabbed the Russian man's cash because he doesn't know any better and had the money and MJ is MJ.

    I'd hate to see the Pacers leave Indy, though. Can't and shouldn't happen.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

      Originally posted by Trophy View Post

      God, I hope they don't go anywhere my first year in Indy.
      Well, I'll be the first to blame you.

      Stay away.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

        The article is incorrect as it appears Conseco has a few more suites than what that article suggests. I found an NBA.com site that suggests that there are 69 suites, plus two additional hospitality suites. http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?ti...eco_Fieldhouse 69+2=71 suites. Furthermore, Conseco has about 2400 club seats versus 1500 in the Sprint Center.

        Comparing the Dallas and Indy market is like comparing Apples and Oranges. Dallas is one of the 10 largest cities and metro areas in the country. Plus, the arena is also shared with the NHL team (Stars), so I would expect them to have a lot more suites than Conseco.

        If you want to measure comparable arenas, let's look at cities like Charlotte, San Antonio, Orlando, Portland, New Orleans, Memphis, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Cleveland, etc.

        Here's the breakdown of what I could find as far as suites in these other cities that I referenced:

        -- Charlotte (Time Warner Cable Arena) Opened in 2005 w/ 51 suites
        -- San Antonio (AT&T Center) Opened in 2002 w/ 50 suites
        -- Orlando (Amway Arena) Opened in 1989 w/ 26 suites
        -- Portland (Rose Garden) Opened in 1995 w/ 70 suites
        -- New Orleans (NO Arena) Opened in 1999 w/ 44 Suites
        -- Memphis (FedEx Forum) Opened in 2004 with 75 suites
        -- Milwaukee (Bradley Arena) Opened in 1988 w/ 68 Suites
        -- OKC (Ford Center) Opened in 2002 w/ 56 suites
        -- Cleveland (Quicken Loans Arena) Opened in 1994 w/92 suites

        *** Magic are opening up a new arena this fall w/ 60 suites

        As you can see, there are several cities very comparable to Indy that have newer arenas with fewer luxury suites. Several cities with similar populations and demographics to Indy (San Antonio, Charlotte, Orlando) have or are opening new arenas after Conseco was built with fewer suites. Cities like New Orleans and OKC landed their teams after building their arenas.

        Cities like LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, Houston, NY, Miami, etc. are some of the largest cities in the country with a strong corporate base, greater populations, etc. than Indy. It only makes sense that their arenas house a larger number of suites.

        In areas like Sacramento and Charlotte previously, those arenas were and are not located downtown and had/have such a small number of suites. I had gone to the Charlotte Coliseum before it was torn down and it's way out in a suburb and only housed 12 suites, despite being built in 1988. To put this into perspective, Market Square Arena was opened in 1974 with 36 suites. An Arena like Arco in Sacramento is also located off the beaten path.

        Kansas City may have a newer arena, but they also have the Chiefs and Royals. I don't know if there's enough corporate support there for a 3rd professional team from one of the Big 4. Plus, KC also has an MLS team too.

        A team like Sacramento is more likely to move before Indy does. Yes, the Pacers may potentially be up for sale, but I expect the Simon family will try and find an owner -- whether local or not -- who wants to keep the team in Indy!

        The author of this article saw the blurb on the Pacers from Forbes and decides to float a story out there that is not true.
        Last edited by Smoothdave1; 03-20-2010, 11:07 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

          The original looks like just another article talking about the Pacers financial problem and as it says "Look for Herbert Simon to get an offer for the Indiana Pacers for around $230 million over the next few months," to me, that just sounds like nothing more than his prediction that it could happen and then gives his opinion of what the team is worth. It doesn't mean that he has some kind of inside information about the matter.

          And as things get carried away, the quote from http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...ance-aisle.php (the first article from ProBasketballTalk about the matter) is "Michael K. Ozanian of Forbes is reporting that the Indiana Pacers owner Herb Simon will receive an offer for $230 million or less in the next two months." Smoothdave1 is exactly right in that the article is not true. Besides the obvious distortion of facts regarding suites, both articles from ProBasketballTalk are simply based on someone else's speculation and then passed off as fact.

          There is no real story here.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
            Well, I'll be the first to blame you.

            Stay away.
            They need to get good and have lots of sellouts for the next few seasons for me to be convinced they won't be going anywhere.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

              I think if Tyler is able to live up to what his college standards were, that'll sell more tickets. People know him and he's a big named player who is very good and fun to watch.

              His play will also help us wins so hopefully he gets all better and doesn't lack next season.

              Also Conseco Fieldhouse is definitly one of the most nicest arenas out there. I don't know why luxury suites are an issue. They all aren't filled every single home game. Who can afford it that's what I wanna know?

              I'm hoping the Simons offer first to anyone local before risking selling the team out of the state.

              I think there will be a turning point for the better which will avoid all of this financial debt.
              Last edited by Trophy; 03-21-2010, 12:00 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                I'm pretty sure when the Fieldhouse was built that there was a huge penalty in moving the team the first 20 years. That could be a definite reason for staying. Colts have the same deal at Lucas Oil Stadium. Bring a winner in and everything sells, keep JOB as coach and we lose (had to throw that in there).
                "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                  Not being political here, but with the promise of closing tax loopholes I wonder just how Desirable owning a sports franchise or even leasing a suite will be in the near future?
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                    It is almost like Chad Ford is telling us once more how certain we are to trade Murphy for Ilgauskas before the trade deadline. Until the estate of Mel Simon settles, depending on how any challenges against the estate and its holdings are structured, it might be difficult for the Simon family to do anything with the franchise whether they want to or not.

                    With respect to the arena speculation, unless and until the Pacers are able to sell their suites out for full value, their club seats out for full value, and the lower bowl seats out for full value, AND do so on a consistent basis AND pay their obligations to the CIB, the issue of a new arena here is a complete non-starter due to the public backlash that such an undertaking would generate. I think that the taxpayers would literally run the franchise out of Indianapolis if further burden is placed on taxpayers to fund any of the cost of such a facility, let alone a large portion, if not all, of it as would be required at this point.

                    If there is any truth regarding the arena being inadequate as a revenue generator for supporting the Pacers as a franchise (and I don't think that is actually the case, and never has been IMO), then they had better either fold (which would s*ck) or move to a far higher population density area with a lot more major corporations in place who have interest in purchasing all three of the non-balcony ticket types, as well as paying a higher amount for in-arena advertising opportunities.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                      Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                      It is almost like Chad Ford is telling us once more how certain we are to trade Murphy for Ilgauskas before the trade deadline. Until the estate of Mel Simon settles, depending on how any challenges against the estate and its holdings are structured, it might be difficult for the Simon family to do anything with the franchise whether they want to or not.
                      I believe that Mel Simon sold/gave his share of the team to Herb while Mel was in poor health. I believe that there are no entanglements with the Mel Simon estate in regards to the Pacers.

                      Originally posted by Brad8888
                      With respect to the arena speculation, unless and until the Pacers are able to sell their suites out for full value, their club seats out for full value, and the lower bowl seats out for full value, AND do so on a consistent basis AND pay their obligations to the CIB, the issue of a new arena here is a complete non-starter due to the public backlash that such an undertaking would generate. I think that the taxpayers would literally run the franchise out of Indianapolis if further burden is placed on taxpayers to fund any of the cost of such a facility, let alone a large portion, if not all, of it as would be required at this point.

                      If there is any truth regarding the arena being inadequate as a revenue generator for supporting the Pacers as a franchise (and I don't think that is actually the case, and never has been IMO), then they had better either fold (which would s*ck) or move to a far higher population density area with a lot more major corporations in place who have interest in purchasing all three of the non-balcony ticket types, as well as paying a higher amount for in-arena advertising opportunities.
                      I didn't think the building was ever called into question, unless I misread somewhere along the line. The thing in question is the lease and who gets to hold the bag on operating the facility. The building is going to generate revenue if their are posteriors parked in the seats.
                      Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 03-21-2010, 11:09 AM.
                      ...Still "flying casual"
                      @roaminggnome74

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                        Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                        I believe that Mel Simon sold/gave his share of the team to Herb while Mel was in poor health. I believe that there are no entanglements with the Mel Simon estate in regards to the Pacers.
                        I hope you are right.

                        I am speculating here, but I am not so sure.

                        Depending on how that transfer was structured, the IRS could come back and say that the Simon's were attempting to avoid paying estate taxes by transferring Mel's share to Herb, especially if the IRS decides that the transfer was for less than what would have been fair market value at the time of the transaction.

                        If the transfer happened after Mel was in poor health, the IRS could come back and say that the difference between what Herb paid, if anything, and the actual market value of Mel's share at the time of the transaction would have been subject to whatever Gift Tax was in effect at the time of the transaction.

                        The IRS can be very sticky about Estate and Gift taxes. Historically, they are amongst the highest percentage taxes that are ever collected, even though they are significantly less at this point than they have been in a very long time, but Mel's estate likely still is liable for them in general, whether his share of the Pacers is directly involved or not. As a result, I beleive that the IRS will look for every penny it can get and will investigate thoroughly, including transactions that occurred after Mel's health declined.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                          Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
                          The article is incorrect as it appears Conseco has a few more suites than what that article suggests. I found an NBA.com site that suggests that there are 69 suites, plus two additional hospitality suites. http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php?ti...eco_Fieldhouse 69+2=71 suites. Furthermore, Conseco has about 2400 club seats versus 1500 in the Sprint Center.

                          Comparing the Dallas and Indy market is like comparing Apples and Oranges. Dallas is one of the 10 largest cities and metro areas in the country. Plus, the arena is also shared with the NHL team (Stars), so I would expect them to have a lot more suites than Conseco.

                          If you want to measure comparable arenas, let's look at cities like Charlotte, San Antonio, Orlando, Portland, New Orleans, Memphis, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Cleveland, etc.

                          Here's the breakdown of what I could find as far as suites in these other cities that I referenced:

                          -- Charlotte (Time Warner Cable Arena) Opened in 2005 w/ 51 suites
                          -- San Antonio (AT&T Center) Opened in 2002 w/ 50 suites
                          -- Orlando (Amway Arena) Opened in 1989 w/ 26 suites
                          -- Portland (Rose Garden) Opened in 1995 w/ 70 suites
                          -- New Orleans (NO Arena) Opened in 1999 w/ 44 Suites
                          -- Memphis (FedEx Forum) Opened in 2004 with 75 suites
                          -- Milwaukee (Bradley Arena) Opened in 1988 w/ 68 Suites
                          -- OKC (Ford Center) Opened in 2002 w/ 56 suites
                          -- Cleveland (Quicken Loans Arena) Opened in 1994 w/92 suites

                          *** Magic are opening up a new arena this fall w/ 60 suites

                          As you can see, there are several cities very comparable to Indy that have newer arenas with fewer luxury suites. Several cities with similar populations and demographics to Indy (San Antonio, Charlotte, Orlando) have or are opening new arenas after Conseco was built with fewer suites. Cities like New Orleans and OKC landed their teams after building their arenas.

                          Cities like LA, Dallas, Chicago, Boston, Houston, NY, Miami, etc. are some of the largest cities in the country with a strong corporate base, greater populations, etc. than Indy. It only makes sense that their arenas house a larger number of suites.

                          In areas like Sacramento and Charlotte previously, those arenas were and are not located downtown and had/have such a small number of suites. I had gone to the Charlotte Coliseum before it was torn down and it's way out in a suburb and only housed 12 suites, despite being built in 1988. To put this into perspective, Market Square Arena was opened in 1974 with 36 suites. An Arena like Arco in Sacramento is also located off the beaten path.

                          Kansas City may have a newer arena, but they also have the Chiefs and Royals. I don't know if there's enough corporate support there for a 3rd professional team from one of the Big 4. Plus, KC also has an MLS team too.

                          A team like Sacramento is more likely to move before Indy does. Yes, the Pacers may potentially be up for sale, but I expect the Simon family will try and find an owner -- whether local or not -- who wants to keep the team in Indy!

                          The author of this article saw the blurb on the Pacers from Forbes and decides to float a story out there that is not true.
                          This was better researched and written than the original article. Nice work.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            Depending on how that transfer was structured, the IRS could come back and say that the Simon's were attempting to avoid paying estate taxes by transferring Mel's share to Herb, especially if the IRS decides that the transfer was for less than what would have been fair market value at the time of the transaction.
                            One would certainly hope that a family whose livelihood depends on the ins and outs of property transfer would have thoroughly checked into this and dotted all the i's and crossed the t's before moving forward.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                              Two things:

                              First, if Market Square Arena had 36 suites, where were they at? I don't ever remember seeing them, and if I remember the seating arrangement, it seems hard to picture where they might have been.

                              Second, the financial trouble the Pacers are in is pretty much their own fault. They are the ones who wanted full control of the arena because they wanted all the profits. The operating costs are a lot easier to swallow when you've got a championship caliber team selling out the place every game. For them to want the taxpayer's to foot the difference is mind boggling to me. If that's the case, when the team does turn a profit again, they better be asking where to send the taxpayer's portion. I'm so done with professional franchises blaming their financial problems on outdated arenas, bad fan bases, and economic crisis. It's the real world, deal with it.

                              BTW, the Pacers saying they lost 30 million over the first two years of Conseco Fieldhouse operation sounds like complete BS to me and I almost jumped off the bandwagon when that report came out. What do they take us for? Fools?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Brief Forbes article discussing how much Simon could get for the Pacers

                                MSA didn't have any suites. It was built in an era and an area where luxury boxes didn't need to exist.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X