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

Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

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

  • Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    That estimate of the Super Bowl boost is much too high. The estimates I have (from PriceWaterhouseCoopers) say betweem $130 million and $280 million.
    Indy being a low cost area of the country...would of course be at the low end of that estimate.

    Edit: Sales and Use Tax on 130M is 9.1M to the state....less than what we owe Jamaal Tinsley who doesn't even play.....lol.
    Last edited by BlueNGold; 03-15-2009, 07:40 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      So, the justification for funding a private business with tax dollars is that some out-of-state money flows into the state coffers because of the existence of the business? I wonder if Eli Lilly or Wellpoint want in on that deal. To be sure, they bring a ton of well-to-do out of state people every week of the year...and have done so for decades filling our hotels. What happens to the tax base when all private companies use these justifications to have their operating costs covered by the government?

      Well, the Colts and Pacers don't have to worry about that. Most private businesses don't have the same power and connections and don't run the type of businesses politicians like to beat their chest for.
      A lot of our money does come from conventions that are advertised by what the city has to offer. The city offers sports (speedway,colts,pacers) and all are attractive to varying degrees. Which tourists come to Indy to see Lilly buildings? The teams are the draw that says this city is worth visiting. Lose the Pacers, colts, and racing and we are no more a draw than Hoboken and we become what we were before we had the colts and an nba team-naptown.
      I guess the question is whether the teams make us better off economically or not. If they don't they are on their own and if they do then we make an investment in them in order to get a better return.

      What you and bball don't seem to get is that regardless of whether it is fair or unfair the teams need to make a certain profit and if they can't make that profit they can go somewhere else. It doesn't matter whether their lack of profit is their own fault. Somewhere else they are offering more. Would Lilly stay here if they didn't make a profit? Complicating the problem is that the Pacers may be at an inherent disadvantage vis a vis big market venues and so if we really want this team for our economic well being then we have to pony up more than other municipalities have to. Are these payments to the team in the self-interest of the city or the self interest of fans? Cities that lose big time sports teams always try to get a team back. Bball wants to tell the pacers they are making enough or should pay more of their own expenses. The pacers can tell bball to read about the team in the papers because they are gone. New city, new stadium, new lease, fans hungry for sports=bigger profits.

      Comment


      • Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

        Bball wants the Simons to open their books before the discussion goes any further. I see a lot of posturing here and I don't believe this is being debated honestly so that the taxpayers have a truly clear picture of what is going on.

        In a perfect world, the Pacers HAVE to be told "no" and it shouldn't even be a question. It is a moral issue for me as well as an economic issue. Failing business models need to be allowed to fail or fix their own mess.

        But things have gotten so out of whack that even with arguably the best deal in the NBA the Pacers still want more and claim they can't make a profit. Once again, in a perfect world this wouldn't be the taxpayers' problem... it would be the NBA and Simons' problem. And as such, I have no doubt it would be fixed. But these sweetheart deals offered on the backs of taxpayers take the free market out of the equation.

        Also, in a perfect world it should be almost impossible to move a team. Teams in motion are not good for the NBA. That so many teams are struggling is not the fault of the city they are located in. It's not "small" markets that are struggling... it's simply that only HUGE markets can survive (apparently). The NBA business model is critically flawed. I do not want taxpayers bailing out that flawed model. They must fix their own mess and part of me thinks there is another city waiting to welcome the Pacers and part of me wonders exactly where are they going to get a better deal than here already?

        Wherever they'd go, once the honeymoon is over, then what? A team with no history and a track record of questionable player contracts and abysmal marketing is suddenly going to turn that around in a new city? If anything, the new city's deal and the honeymoon period would have them (TPTB) sitting fat and happy again and doing things as they've always done... until the fans started turning their backs once the new wore off. Then what? Threaten to move again if they don't get some more corporate welfare?

        It's time for ALL cities and states to say "no". The gravy train has come to an end. Taxpayers cannot afford these burdens while other infrastructure goes to waste.

        This isn't about the Pacers, this is about out of control government spending being reined in for me.
        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


        • Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
          A lot of our money does come from conventions that are advertised by what the city has to offer. The city offers sports (speedway,colts,pacers) and all are attractive to varying degrees. Which tourists come to Indy to see Lilly buildings? The teams are the draw that says this city is worth visiting. Lose the Pacers, colts, and racing and we are no more a draw than Hoboken and we become what we were before we had the colts and an nba team-naptown.
          I guess the question is whether the teams make us better off economically or not. If they don't they are on their own and if they do then we make an investment in them in order to get a better return.

          What you and bball don't seem to get is that regardless of whether it is fair or unfair the teams need to make a certain profit and if they can't make that profit they can go somewhere else. It doesn't matter whether their lack of profit is their own fault. Somewhere else they are offering more. Would Lilly stay here if they didn't make a profit? Complicating the problem is that the Pacers may be at an inherent disadvantage vis a vis big market venues and so if we really want this team for our economic well being then we have to pony up more than other municipalities have to. Are these payments to the team in the self-interest of the city or the self interest of fans? Cities that lose big time sports teams always try to get a team back. Bball wants to tell the pacers they are making enough or should pay more of their own expenses. The pacers can tell bball to read about the team in the papers because they are gone. New city, new stadium, new lease, fans hungry for sports=bigger profits.
          Yes, the Pacers and the Colts add to the city's reputation. They probably have some impact on convention traffic...how much is unclear. I think conventions come based on the amount of space available, the quality of the facility, safety, shopping and the layout of the downtown area. They like Indy because people can easily walk to everything, it's a pretty low cost area and it's relatively safe.

          I think we all understand the potential results of such a view. Seattle is out one NBA team because they came to the same conclusion. Whether you want to call their move stupid and shortsighted or equitable and honorable...it will depend on your view. Nuffsaid.

          BTW, you make a good point about a smaller market team needing to "give" a little more to have a professional franchise. I consider that a shame (that I also refuse to bend over for), but it is the reality. That's also why I think revenue sharing is the way the league should be run.....or every city should keep their Mayflower trucks warmed up and ready to go...because there is always another politician in a city not so far away ready to give away tax dollars.

          Comment


          • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

            Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
            I think the city should just take control of them team like Baltimore wanted to do with the Colts.
            That worked out real well for Baltimore, didn't it?

            The situation with the public owning the Green Bay Packers is an absolute aberration that no one should put any stock in, because it can't and won't happen again.

            Two things can happen here. Most likely, like every other city, Indianapolis will bend down and give the Pacers their money. Or, we could be like Seattle, and realize that the situation and precedent is flawed, and tell the Simons to **** off. That of course, would be at the expense of our team. Unless something crazy happens those are your two choices. Cities NEED to stand up to these franchises and tell them that they're not going to support something that is unprofitable and is in many instances viewed as an expensive hobby, but that hasn't happened yet and even if it did I am unsure of how that would actually change anything.

            Comment


            • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

              Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
              Can anyone please explain to me how they are loosing 30 million a year? They keep all the revenue from all events at Conseco. How can that spell a 30 million dollar loss? Or is it a 30 million dollar loss because the revenue from those events goes into another book? Loosing money 9 out of 10 year? It has to be, there is just no way. They are making money they are just keeping the books a certain way that shows them loosing money. The Simons are really really rich. The Pacers have the best deal in the league. How could another city actually afford to top what we have given them?

              More and more this seems like a greedy man trying to take us for a ride while using fear to get what he wants. I think the city should just take control of them team like Baltimore wanted to do with the Colts.
              They don't keep all of the revenue from the shows. First and foremost, the money goes to the acts themselves. The remaining dollars -- the few that are remaining -- are cut between CIB and the Pacers (or the Colts for LOS).

              I'd heavily suggest reading some of the articles fellow PD'ers have posted.

              Comment


              • Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Bball wants the Simons to open their books before the discussion goes any further. I see a lot of posturing here and I don't believe this is being debated honestly so that the taxpayers have a truly clear picture of what is going on.

                In a perfect world, the Pacers HAVE to be told "no" and it shouldn't even be a question. It is a moral issue for me as well as an economic issue. Failing business models need to be allowed to fail or fix their own mess.

                But things have gotten so out of whack that even with arguably the best deal in the NBA the Pacers still want more and claim they can't make a profit. Once again, in a perfect world this wouldn't be the taxpayers' problem... it would be the NBA and Simons' problem. And as such, I have no doubt it would be fixed. But these sweetheart deals offered on the backs of taxpayers take the free market out of the equation.

                Also, in a perfect world it should be almost impossible to move a team. Teams in motion are not good for the NBA. That so many teams are struggling is not the fault of the city they are located in. It's not "small" markets that are struggling... it's simply that only HUGE markets can survive (apparently). The NBA business model is critically flawed. I do not want taxpayers bailing out that flawed model. They must fix their own mess and part of me thinks there is another city waiting to welcome the Pacers and part of me wonders exactly where are they going to get a better deal than here already?

                Wherever they'd go, once the honeymoon is over, then what? A team with no history and a track record of questionable player contracts and abysmal marketing is suddenly going to turn that around in a new city? If anything, the new city's deal and the honeymoon period would have them (TPTB) sitting fat and happy again and doing things as they've always done... until the fans started turning their backs once the new wore off. Then what? Threaten to move again if they don't get some more corporate welfare?

                It's time for ALL cities and states to say "no". The gravy train has come to an end. Taxpayers cannot afford these burdens while other infrastructure goes to waste.

                This isn't about the Pacers, this is about out of control government spending being reined in for me.
                I'd love to see the books, but I don't understand why it's necessary they show them in order to negotiate. They have a contracted right to negotiate agreed upon by boths parties when the original contracted was executed.

                I think my favorite part about this whole thing was summed up by Tully in the Star -- he spent the whole article complaining about the Pacers and how they should function as is, but then went on to say that the Colts should re-negotiate if they "had any loyalty to the city". Which one is it? Should they run like a private business or run like a community-owned one? Because when things go bad like the Pacers, everyone argues the former -- yet when things go great like the Colts, everyone wants the money back based on civic duty.

                It gets old.

                Comment


                • Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                  Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                  That estimate of the Super Bowl boost is much too high. The estimates I have (from PriceWaterhouseCoopers) say betweem $130 million and $280 million. But even it it were as high as you say, the stadium cost a lot more than $400 million, didn't it. That Super Bowl WON'T pay the cost of the stadium or anything like it.

                  And Lucas Oil Stadium is NOT going to bring in a lot more convention business. The expanded convention business will occur at the expanded Indiana Convention Center at the old site of the RCA Dome. The expanded convention potential would have been the same without any football stadium at all.

                  Pro sports facilities do not pay for themselves. Conseco won't, and Lucas Oil won't, either. The only rational justification for having a stadium or arena is if people of a community like the teams and are willing to see their tax dollar spent that way instead of some other way.
                  I'm just repeating numbers I heard on the local news here at the time. And I know your estimate is low. The gate for the SB was almost 60 million dollars by itself. I would say your estimate probably factors in the revenue after expenses and mine doesn't. But the expenses in putting on the event also benefit the economy, thus should still be counted as generated revenue, JMO.

                  I never said it would pay for the cost of the stadium, even though it will in LOS' case before it is all said and done. I said just the additional revenue from the expansion of the convention center plus the SB would likely offset the operating costs. And yes, the convention center expansion is a part of that deal because it wouldn't have been possible without removing the RCA Dome.

                  I am talking about the overall deal from the cities perspective not just the stadiums. LOS will host a SB, Final Fours, allow for the convention center expansion. The Fieldhouse hosts the Pacers, Fever and a few concerts, Big Ten Tourney, etc. A few very good events no doubt, but no comparison in sheer size.

                  Another thing I would like to see is how much the Fever make or lose and what that affect is on the number.
                  Last edited by Taterhead; 03-15-2009, 11:29 PM.
                  "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                  Comment


                  • Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    There will be some exceptions, but overall it's a transfer of wealth from central Indiana tax payers making 50-100K+ to people making a whole lot more...arranged and lobbied by people who make a whole lot more.

                    Connect some dots for me. I would like to know how that benefits a family living off 50-100K in the Indianapolis area. That may not be your version of middle class, but that's somewhere to start.

                    It probably helps waiters and waitresses downtown and in the northern burbs a little. That might count at the low end...but let's just say that's an awfully limited group for an awfully limited time period when they would be making money anyway.

                    It might keep a bunch of $8-$10/hr people busy cleaning tables and rooms downtown. That does not count because you know they're not seeing any of it....and 2 weeks of employment is nobody's answer.

                    It should help some restaurant owners downtown. I guess that qualifies for the 50K-100K crowd or higher...but I suspect the bulk of that will go to places like Schula's where the owners are already multimillionaires.

                    It might help some retail shops, but I suspect the mall will be where the vast majority of shopping is done by out of state people...and most of those shops are large retailers manned by a minimum wage worker.

                    So...while there are exceptions, the bulk will go to the wealthy who own the hotels, fine dining establishments and large retailers...not the middle class tax paying residents of central Indiana.
                    Because they money continues to flow through the economy. It doesn't just stop with the people who earn it initially.

                    When you earn your paycheck, you in turn spend it. You might by a car, groceries, a jet ski, whatever. Your income in turn becomes a part of another persons' income and so on. It's a ton of money that circulates throughout the economy that wasn't there before.

                    Sure most of it goes to the upper and lower ends of the economy. But those are the people that pay the middle class' salaries by buying what they are selling. The more money they have to spend, the more they buy. Plain and simple.

                    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    Indy being a low cost area of the country...would of course be at the low end of that estimate.

                    Edit: Sales and Use Tax on 130M is 9.1M to the state....less than what we owe Jamaal Tinsley who doesn't even play.....lol.
                    That money doesn't just get taxed once. When you earn your paycheck at the end of the week, you then in turn spend it. Whatever you spend it on become someone elses' salary which is also taxed. And so on and so on.

                    It's way too simplistic to think it's just a one time tax. Even if all of it eventually leaves the state, the taxes it generated stay in terms of roads built, state employees salaries paid and school improvements.
                    Last edited by Taterhead; 03-15-2009, 11:27 PM.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                      Threads: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN] & Article in Defense of the Simons have been merged together.

                      Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused...

                      -RG
                      ...Still "flying casual"
                      @roaminggnome74

                      Comment


                      • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                        Here is an article from the IBJ last year (It's from January of 08 so it's a little over a year old). You can see how this has escalated to where we are now.


                        What’s Pacers’ next play?
                        Team falls into last place in NBA home attendance; league wants ‘ship righted’
                        Sat. January 26 - 2008
                        Anthony Schoettle - aschoettle@ibj.com


                        The Indiana Pacers have hit rock bottom.

                        This month, the team slipped into last place in average home attendance among the 30 National Basketball Association teams, falling behind the New Orleans Hornets, a team that is selling tickets in an area still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina.

                        The Pacers’ average home attendance through 19 games is 12,068. New Orleans is averaging 12,159 through 21 home dates.

                        The attendance slump and two consecutive years of financial losses have stirred speculation the franchise will ask for city assistance.

                        The situation is so bad, said league insiders, NBA Commissioner David Stern is keeping an eye on it.

                        “It’s one of a handful of clubs the NBA is concerned about,” said Marc Ganis, president of Chicago-based Sportscorp Ltd., a firm that works with several NBA teams on business operations. “This is something no one foresaw three or four years ago.”

                        Scott O’Neil, NBA senior vice president for team marketing and business operations, said, “We’re putting a little extra time into the Pacers at this point.”

                        NBA account managers have come to Indianapolis to help with marketing, branding and sales, O’Neil said.

                        “This is not a five-alarm fire,” he said. “Our mind-set is, let’s get the ship righted.”

                        If the Pacers’ attendance doesn’t improve, this could be the worst year since 1990-1991, when the team averaged 11,592 per home game at Market Square Arena. The franchise hasn’t slid below 12,000 since then and only dipped below 15,500 once since 1994-1995. That was last year, when average attendance for the 41 home games was 15,359.

                        “This type of attendance drop does surprise me,” said Mark Rosentraub, former dean at IUPUI and author of “Major League Losers,” a book about professional sports operations. Rosentraub said teams that experience such dramatic attendance declines need to survey their fan base and take action based on the results.

                        One aspect that is troubling to Rosentraub is that the team’s spot in the standings doesn’t mirror their attendance rank.

                        “This is a team that is still in the hunt for a playoff spot,” he said. “It makes you wonder.”

                        A string of off-court escapades and courtroom appearances by players hasn’t helped, sports marketers said.

                        Forbes Magazine reported the Pacers lost $12.5 million during the 2005-2006 season and another $1.3 million last year. The team has stemmed the bleeding by cutting its player payroll from $79 million during the 2005-2006 season to $67 million last year, according to Forbes.

                        It isn’t all bad news for the Pacers.

                        The team’s merchandise sales are in the top half of the NBA, Pacers officials say. Corporate support continues to be strong, with all but a couple of Conseco Fieldhouse suites leased, and almost 200 corporate partners on the books, said Jim Morris, special assistant to Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh.

                        Concert business at the Pacers-run Fieldhouse also is growing, after the organization hired a Los Angeles-based booking agency. Eleven of 17 concerts hosted during 2007 were booked during the fourth quarter, and Morris said 2008 is off to a strong start (see story, page 15).

                        But Pacers home attendance is a crippling financial factor. Sports business experts said a decline of the magnitude the Pacers are experiencing this year could cost the team $7 million to $9 million in ticket revenue alone. Lost parking, concession and other ancillary revenue that results from fewer fans’ attending games could easily put the loss in the eight-figure range.

                        The situation has some wondering if Pacers officials will approach the city to seek financial assistance. New Mayor Greg Ballard said he met with team officials and has been apprised of the situation.

                        He said he will meet with Pacers coowner Herb Simon within a week or so, but Ballard called that a “get-to-know-you” kind of meeting.

                        Officials within former Mayor Bart Peterson’s administration also said the Pacers talked to them about their financial straits.

                        Pacers and city officials said there have been no discussions of sweetening the lease deal for Conseco Fieldhouse. It’s already pretty sweet, with the Pacers handling all the events and taking in all the revenue from the 18,345-seat facility, which opened for the 1999-2000 season. The team’s annual lease payment is $1.

                        City officials haven’t completely closed the door on the idea of helping the Pacers financially. There are provisions in the Fieldhouse lease that would allow the city to subsidize the Pacers to help make up financial losses.

                        “This relationship has to be a win-win for the Pacers and the community, and you always look for ways to make that happen,” said Pat Early, a longtime member of the Capital Improvement Board, the city government agency that owns Conseco Fieldhouse.

                        Early stopped short of saying he’d support subsidizing the Pacers, something the city did before the franchise moved to the Fieldhouse.

                        “Obviously, the solution is not to build another arena, and a subsidy would be difficult,” he said. “But if we can sit down and get the right people in the room, we can get creative.”

                        Pacers officials said they have neither asked to renegotiate the team’s Fieldhouse lease nor put their hands out for a subsidy. Team owners Herb and Mel Simon did not reply to requests for an interview.

                        “Herb and Mel have not asked for anything,” said the Pacers’ Morris. “They’ve never even raised the issue of the lease deal with the city.”

                        Morris called on city officials and the community to rally around the team.

                        “We’re really working hard to put a good product on the floor,” he said. “Herb and Mel Simon got into this business for the community, and they want this to be something this city can be proud of.”

                        The Pacers have to hope the off-the-court incidents that have marred the team’s reputation in recent years don’t have a lasting effect that supersedes whatever success the team can find in the win-loss column, sports marketers said.

                        “Winning usually cures all ills,” Ganis said. “But this market—maybe more than most—seems to want a team with character.”

                        With the Colts’ season over, sports marketers said the time is now for the team to make its push for fan support.

                        “They’ve weathered the storm, and I expect things to pick up,” said Larry DeGaris, director of academic sports marketing programs at the University of Indianapolis. “But they better have a good plan.”

                        http://cms.ibj.com/ASPXPages/6iframe...0342&NoFrame=1

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

                        I will venture forth a theory on why attendance declined even though "“This [was] a team that [was] still in the hunt for a playoff spot,” he said. “It makes you wonder.”

                        The East was pitiful for the 2nd half of the available playoff spots last year. Nobody thought a team backing in to the bottom rung of the playoff bracket was going to do anything but lose. I don't think casual fans or many fans overall consider just making the playoffs to be the Holy Grail. And some people even see that as being more of a setback than a sign of improvement.

                        I'm not surprised being marginally in THAT playoff hunt (which is much the same as this year) would not inspire much community support.

                        Basketball fans in Indiana are still knowledgeable about the game and the NBA. Maybe not as much as they once were but they still know when they see a team on the rise and a team simply hoping that some bad teams in front of them fall back to them.

                        We just need to continue the rebuild and not worry about the playoffs. It's a shame this other distraction (Pacers making overtures that they could be forced to leave Indy) has reared its head now.

                        -Bball
                        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


                        • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                          http://www.insideindianabusiness.com...=34506&ts=true
                          InsideINdianaBusiness.com Report (No author listed)


                          Meeting under way currently, as I understand it.

                          The head of the Capital Improvement Board in Indianapolis (CIB) says all options are on the table to help the organization make up for a budget shortfall of at least $20 million. CIB Chairman Bob Grand does not rule out the possibility of a downtown Indianapolis casino to help offset operating costs for Conseco Fieldhouse, Lucas Oil Stadium and the Indiana Convention Center. He says other options include selling naming rights for the convention center.

                          Grand says the CIB has asked the state legislature for help on the issue. He says the board can only discuss revenue generating opportunities adding that state lawmakers would have to put those ideas into action.

                          Grand says the CIB had been running at a deficit for years and then took on the added financial burden of Lucas Oil Stadium.

                          He also says some members of the board believe the downtown area would be better off making sure the National Basketball Association's Pacers stay in Indianapolis. The CIB would have to operate Conseco Fieldhouse with, or without, the professional team as the venues main tenant.

                          Some opponents to a casino in Indianapolis are concerned it would take business away from new operations in Shelbyville and Anderson

                          Source: Inside INdiana Business

                          Comment


                          • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                            Question - does anyone talking about the Pacers' sweet lease deal on the Fieldhouse factor in the $57M they contributed to building the facility?

                            Do any of the other teams trying to negotiate the same lease intend to pay for part of a new arena?

                            I have a feeling that the lease deal and the construction costs are not being seen together. I certainly have not heard of any other facility in recent years being built with contributions from the team it was being built for. Why does no one seem to look at this?
                            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


                            • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              Question - does anyone talking about the Pacers' sweet lease deal on the Fieldhouse factor in the $57M they contributed to building the facility?

                              Do any of the other teams trying to negotiate the same lease intend to pay for part of a new arena?

                              I have a feeling that the lease deal and the construction costs are not being seen together. I certainly have not heard of any other facility in recent years being built with contributions from the team it was being built for. Why does no one seem to look at this?
                              Umm... Jim Irsay ponied up $100M dollars into the construction of Lucas Oil Stadium. It is not the same percentage that the Simons poured into Conseco, but it is a rather large chunk of change, none the less.

                              As for what you are saying.... I'm sure there are a lot of factors involved in the negotiations that the general public are not privy to.
                              Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 03-16-2009, 09:21 AM.
                              ...Still "flying casual"
                              @roaminggnome74

                              Comment


                              • Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                                Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                                Umm... Jim Irsay ponied up $100M dollars into the construction of Lucas Oil Stadium. It is not the same percentage that the Simons poured into Conseco, but it is a rather large chunk of change, none the less.

                                As for what you are saying.... I'm sure there are a lot of factors involved in the negotiations that the general public are not privy to.
                                I stand corrected. I wasn't back in town yet during the Lucas Oil Stadium stuff, and since I'm only peripherally a Colts fan I didn't follow it.

                                One point in Irsay's favor, I guess. If the Pacers end up getting screwed, though, I'm still going to be upset with him. Not as upset as I am with Nelson Skalbania, but there you go.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X