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

  • #46
    Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

    The problem is not with the Simons persay. They may be the best owners we could ask for of the Pacers. The problem is with professional sports and how they are financed. Specifically, the issue is with the "business model" of the NBA combined with the way our city and state have been spending our tax dollars to support that "business model". While he makes valid points about the Simons, Benner needs to spend a little time distinguishing the issues and identify where a large part of the frustration is truly rooted.

    As for Benner's depiction of the Simons, I think it too shows only one side of the coin. I seriously doubt the Simons are in their real estate business simply to employ people. Somewhere along the way, there must have been a strong profit motive to pile up billions. ...and there is no mention of the fact that professional sports franchises amount to expensive hobbies for the ultra rich, rather than profit-making businesses. The decision to participate in such a hobby takes on risk that the public...many who couldn't care less about the NBA or the Pacers...did not choose to take at a time like this. With that said, I reiterate that I doubt we could have better owners. They should feel slighted by the deal the Colts received. The real angst should be going toward the Irsays IMO. All things considered, I think a combination of the Colt's deal and the economy brought this all to a head...and I'd appreciate some honesty on that point...

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

      I don't really have a problem with the Simons at all, they have done a ton for the city. Plus, they're only asking for something that someone else already has, so it isn't like they are establishing some sort of crazy precedent. I only hate that it is now acceptable and logical for a team to ask for such assistance from the state.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

        Originally posted by Drewtone View Post
        And the funny thing is that I never knew Gretzky played his first professional hockey in Indy for the Racers, not to mention Mark Messier was on the Racers roster for a couple of games. I only found that out when I moved up to Ottawa.
        Yeah, I saw them both play. Years ago, I was cleaning out my closet when I found an old, old Racers program that had Wayne Gretzky in it. I showed it around, then it went back in my closet, where it got buried and probably caught up in other old mags/programs and thrown away later.

        Wish I'd still had it when ebay came along.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

          Putnam,

          I'm not sure how man folks on this board know how I became a Pacers fan or if any of them would think it relevant, but I'll share the short version anyway because I do think it puts things in perspective.

          I grew up in Northern IN - Lake County area (Ok, Gary...dang! Drag it outta me why don't cha!? ) where for over 24 years I never knew my state had it's own professional basketball team. It wasn't until I was stationed in Indianapolis in the mid-80's while on shore duty in the Navy did I come to know about the Pacers. It was about the same time Reggie came on the sceen. The team was built around him and had some of my favorite players - Dale & Antonio Davis, Rik Smits, Mark Jackson and, of course, Reggie. Watching those guys play...I was hooked on this team.

          Over the years since I was introduced to this team, the Pacers have had more up years than down. That's why it amazes and shocks the hell outta me (sorry FA, but the one use of profanity is appropriate in this case) that since the Brawl so many fans are against them. Mind you, as I review the posts from online news articles (see IndyStar.com) it would appear most of those making comments are youngsters and not fans who have been around long before the turn of the 21st Century. So, I tend to take their commentary with a grain of salt. Why? Because most either don't know or have forgotten about the years of consecutive post-season appearances and competitiveness this team has provided. And let's not forget the years of community contributions not to mention the jobs that remain in force where so many involved w/the Pacers take pride in performing.

          I admit, from time to time I've been frustrated with this team's performance, mostly because I remember what this team was like pre-Brawl. But I try real hard to show patience during this rebuilding process. To quote Austin Croshere when recently asked about the direction the Pacers are going, "They're headed in the right direction," as far as their on- and off-court performances are concerned. They may not be winning as we all would like, but they're competing. They're trying very hard. If mgmt continues to make the right moves, I think in another season or two they'll be back among some of the best teams in the league. But the local fans truly need to come back and support them.

          I live in northern Alabama, but if I could get to more than a game or two a year, I'd be front and center at the Fieldhouse. Why? Because I remember where this team came from. I remember when they really weren't anything in the league, but they played hard and never gave up. I remember the rivalries - Knicks, Magic, 76ers, Bulls, and most recently the Pistons - and the years of consecutive post-season appearances. I believe management has done a great job over the years trying to put a great product on the floor and within the community in a small-market area. Unfortunately, (the younger) fans seem to have forgotten. I say it's time the local fans start remembering what they had and begin to realize they can have that same level of pride in their team again. As Croshere said, "They're headed in the right direction".

          The article is a great reminder of what the city of Indianapolis has in the Pacers, and really should be honored that the Simons still want to keep this team in the city despite the fact that they apparently have loss money in recent years. I can't imagine what Indianapolis would be like without the Pacers. I hope things turn around for this proud franchise sooner rather than later.

          Local fans, get behind your team not to push them out of town but to support them totally. You (the city) need them as much as they (the team) needs you.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

            I would ask Benner just where is the overwhelming depiction of the Simons as greedy, grasping, selfish people who are only out for themselves. I'm sure there have been a few letters to the editor and the occasional call in to a radio show but methinks Benner's just wasted a whole bunch of electrons on nothing.

            Most folks will understand it if the team moves. They won't like it one bit but they'll understand.
            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

              Originally posted by 2minutes twowa View Post
              That sentence caught my eye as well. The only teams I have heard that are struggling are Pacers, Grizzlies, Hornets. A better profit sharing model has to come to the NBA or they will start losing teams.
              I posted this article by Bill Simmons on another Simon thread on PD and will post it again. It was long and I expect not many people read it.

              http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/090227

              Specifically, 4. The dawning of NBA Franchise Hot Potato, speaks about some of the teams that are in trouble financially in the NBA.
              Franchise Hot Potato hinges on five factors in all, although only three need to be in play. You need a team with a dwindling fan base and/or bailing sponsors and suite/courtside customers. (I count 11: Indiana, Memphis, Milwaukee, Sacramento, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami, Orlando, Minnesota, Charlotte and Philly.) You need a team trapped in an aging stadium that can't drum up local money for a new one. (I count three: Sacramento, Jersey and Milwaukee.) You need an owner who purchased his team because he was worth a ton of money ON PAPER … only now, he's worth significantly less and might even be worth $10 for all we know. (Consensus candidates for this list: Phoenix, Hijack City, Jersey, Memphis, Indiana, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Charlotte … and, surprisingly, Sacramento and Cleveland.) You need cities with NBA-ready, modern arenas either finished or about to be finished that would love nothing more than stealing a team. (Definitely Kansas City, Anaheim, San Jose, Louisville, Tulsa and Pittsburgh; possibly Columbus, St. Louis; and just for fun, let's throw in Montreal and London.) And you need a struggling team that can actually extricate itself from its lease.

              Looking at the next 15 months only, the consensus of people in the know was that multiple NBA franchises (guesses ranged from three to eight) will move cities, get sold to new owners or throw themselves on the mercy of the league (meaning the NBA would effectively take over operations of that franchise, kinda like what happens in the MLS or WNBA).
              I'm not sure if this completely relates, but Simmons even mentions Cleveland as a team that is struggling financially (or at least the Cleveland owners).

              By the way, this article is a good read and may settle or increase concerns about the Pacers moving. The article also mentions the upcoming CBA and how it should be a major victory for the owners this time around--including significant pay cuts across the board for the athletes.

              My thoughts are this: if there are that many teams struggling, then at least the other cities trying to lure teams will have a pot to choose from. Usually when an NBA team moves, it's one at a time. Charlotte to New Orleans, Vancouver to Memphis, and Seattle to Oklahoma City were all moves that happened at different times.

              Hope someone else finds this interesting and useful. Cheers!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                I would ask Benner just where is the overwhelming depiction of the Simons as greedy, grasping, selfish people who are only out for themselves. I'm sure there have been a few letters to the editor and the occasional call in to a radio show but methinks Benner's just wasted a whole bunch of electrons on nothing.

                Most folks will understand it if the team moves. They won't like it one bit but they'll understand.
                I disagree with your entire post.

                1) Check IndyStar.com the past couple weeks. Check the caption of the photos of TJ Ford signing autographs before the game. Check the story on David Simon and his salary of $3.4MM -- that wouldn't have been posted if his name wasn't Simon. Check the negative tone in the majority of the posts to the articles. People hate billionaires because they're rich even if they are self-made and support the town.

                2) Most folks won't understand if they move because they'll just say, "How's this about money? The owners are billionaires!" You really think if the Simons moved the team or sold it to someone else that the majority of people would have rational responses?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                  I agree with everything Benner wrote. Someone semi-important needed to say it. There is Lilly, then there is the Simons, and then I can't think of anyone else who has helped the City of Indianapolis more.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                    I would ask Benner just where is the overwhelming depiction of the Simons as greedy, grasping, selfish people who are only out for themselves. I'm sure there have been a few letters to the editor and the occasional call in to a radio show but methinks Benner's just wasted a whole bunch of electrons on nothing.

                    Most folks will understand it if the team moves. They won't like it one bit but they'll understand.

                    The reality is the Simons have done great things for Indianapolis. But why doesn't Bill Benner mention any of the things Indy has done for them? You could write this article from either point of view and be on the money. I mean can you not be appreciative but at the same time disagree? What a moronic POV.

                    My position is that this is the wrong time to be asking for more. And that goes for everyone, not just them. With all their business savy they need to at the very least, find a way to minimize the damage. And I don't believe in making concessions to people using tax payer dollars, especially those who haven't made any concessions themselves first.

                    The real problem here is the NBA business model and some bad team decisions. Not the deal for Conseco Fieldhouse. So why is that the focus? They should be putting their energy into fixing the real problem, JMO.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                      The real problem here is the NBA business model and some bad team decisions. Not the deal for Conseco Fieldhouse. So why is that the focus? They should be putting their energy into fixing the real problem, JMO.
                      Tell Benner to read this part over and over and then get back to us...
                      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


                      • #56
                        Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                        Guys...the Simons have said they have no problem with running the costs of a NBA team, its the cost of Conseco that is killing them.


                        @Pacers24Colts12

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          The real problem here is the NBA business model and some bad team decisions. Not the deal for Conseco Fieldhouse. So why is that the focus? They should be putting their energy into fixing the real problem, JMO.

                          It's exactly what they are doing, CFH is costing them 15 million USD a year, with that post OFF their balance sheet the Pacers in general make a profit, so their business model aint that wrong, it's the housing cost that is.

                          So. how good was this deal, how much money did it cost the taxpayer of Indiana and what and who is still in debt on CFH ?

                          CFH cost $ 183 mio to build, coming in at a little 4% over budget due to ecenomny, financed by;

                          May 6, 1999
                          Copyright 1999 MediaVentures

                          The Conseco Fieldhouse, the new home of the Indiana Pacers that opens this fall, is running about four percent over budget, putting the final estimated cost at $183 million. The original budget was $175 million. Much of the extra cost came from dealing with contaminated soil at the site. Construction expenses, brought on by a strong economy, also added to the increase. The same strong economy has kept interest rates down, allowing the city to borrow more to meet the cost without increasing its financing cost.

                          The city has invested $79 million in the venue with $57 million coming from the Pacers and the rest will come from other private sources. The private money will be repaid by the city in 20 years. The Pacers' contribution will come from arena revenues and will be paid over 20 years. Public funding is supported by a tax district and an increase in the hotel-motel tax. A ticket tax will also provide funding for the debt.
                          Based on the fact that last year those taxex on food and tickets were US$ 8 million, the 10th year of the opening of CFH, one can assume that a very large part of that "public" finance has been paid back by the Pacers themselves, add to that the 50% they paid of by now on the US$ 57 mio financing they had to pay for, and one can conclude that outside the maintenance and running cost very little cost are coinciding with CFH.

                          Indianapolis owns the building, for which a large part was paid by the Pacers and based upon taxes coming in as well, paid in full by the Pacers, yet the Pacers are also maintaining and running it to their own detrimental tune of $ 15 mio.

                          On top of that they were still paying for MSA:

                          November 11, 1999
                          Copyright 1999 MediaVentures

                          The Indiana Pacers opened their new $183 million retro-style fieldhouse to an enthusiastic crowd last weekend. The venue replaces Market Square Arena and offers fans better sight lines, better concession facilities and a host of other improvements. It's design is intended to reflect a high school fieldhouse.

                          The venue features 71 luxury suites, including two party suites, priced from $89,000 to $175,000 and 2,500 club seats selling for $2,050 to $3,239. The venue has a 400-seat Varsity Club for the club seat holders.

                          Other amenities include larger and more locker rooms and improved press facilities.

                          The team agreed to a new 20_year lease and must pay off $150 million in bonds on Market Square Arena. The team also gets all revenue and must pay $500 million in damages if it leaves before its lease expires. The team is responsible for $57 million of the cost. Another $79 million came from various local taxes and the rest is from private contributions. Among those contributions is an in-kind contribution of $10 million from Eli Lilly and Co. for use of adjacent land for a parking lot. Ogden Entertainment will provide general concessions while Levy will be operating the premium food service. Local restaurants will also have a presence in the new arena.
                          compare that to LOS:

                          projected to cost $ 500 million, actual cost $ 720 mio

                          The stadium project is linked with the expansion of the Indiana Convention Center. These projects will be funded by a 1% tax on all prepared food in the 9 counties that surround Indianapolis except Morgan County. Marion County (County that holds Indy) will fund the project with an additional 1% tax on top of the original 1% that Marion Co. already pays for the RCA Dome. The project will also be funded by an increase in the Marion County hotel tax, rental car tax, also the sale of special Colts vanity license plate, and future lottery tickets earmarked for the project.
                          On top of that:

                          In addition, details to be released today could include a provision reducing the city's obligation to make annual payments to the Colts beginning in 2006 to keep them playing here. Under the team's existing contract, the city could owe the Colts payments totaling at least $36 million through 2008, when the new stadium would open.

                          --skipped--

                          The development agreement does not call for a ticket tax -- and makes it almost impossible for the state to impose one. If the state wants to try, the development agreement says, officials have to consult with several groups first, including the Indiana Pacers, the Indianapolis Indians, the city and hospitality groups. Even then, the Colts could break their lease if the ticket tax is imposed, said John Klipsch, executive director of the Indiana Stadium and Convention Center Building Authority.
                          And finally WHY CIB is in trouble in reality and this has nothing to do with the Pacers asking for something they haven't got yet:

                          INDIANAPOLIS VENUE BOARD SEEING RED INK
                          January 29, 2009
                          Copyright 2009 MediaVentures

                          Indianapolis, Ind. - The Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board, which manages Lucas Oil Stadium and other sports venues, says its operating deficit could grow to $43 million by next year, far worse than projected and too large for it to solve alone.
                          Part of the problem: the expected renegotiation of the Indiana Pacers' lease of Conseco Fieldhouse. The basketball team pays $15 million a year to cover game-day expenses, and the CIB, calculating the worst-case scenario, is assuming it could have to take over that cost.
                          To get out of its financial mess, the CIB could try to renegotiate better deals with the Indianapolis Colts and other sports teams that use the stadiums it runs.
                          It also could ask city taxpayers for help, though no new taxes could be raised without the OK of the city or state.
                          Neither option was discussed; instead, board members said the goal was to review the problem and kick off efforts to find solutions.
                          The situation is so dire that board Treasurer Ann Lathrop said auditors are reviewing the CIB's finances as a "going concern," a term used to suggest that its near-term viability is in question.
                          The board already had projected an operating deficit of up to $20 million per year in running Lucas Oil Stadium, and it added $5 million to that total for other facilities this year. Just as pressing, the CIB now expects to have to pay $43 million this year for unanticipated loan and insurance obligations brought on by the ongoing world financial crisis.
                          Debts that could have been handled in the past are being called in by banks short on cash, Lathrop said. Another one-time debt payment of nearly $34 million more will come due in 2017. Bob Cockrum, the City-County Council president and a CIB member, said nearly every option for a solution is on the table.
                          Raising taxes during a recession, he said, likely would provoke a strong negative reaction. "Some people would support it for one team or another, but others would say enough is enough," Cockrum said. "I don't think a bailout is an option."
                          He said the first step for the board was to reduce expenses.
                          It ordered a cut of 8 percent, or about $6 million, from this year's budget of $78 million and instituted immediate freezes on hiring, salaries and travel.
                          Just how effective any of the more obvious solutions might be will be a big question for the board to tackle.
                          Colts owner Jim Irsay could not be reached for comment, but Pete Ward, the team's vice president, last year said the idea of "reopening a (lease) agreement that took four years to negotiate is ludicrous."
                          Patrick Early, the board's vice president, said the struggling Pacers are expected to use their option to renegotiate their lease this year.
                          He said he expected the CIB will have to take on more of the expenses of running Conseco if it wants to keep the team in Indianapolis.
                          "All we've established is that the business model we're working with now can't work in the long term," Early said. "We haven't figured out a solution, but I believe it's in the best interest of the city to have the Pacers stay in that building."
                          Early said the Pacers' owners, Mel and Herb Simon, can't continue to lose money on the team, even as he acknowledged that the players' legal troubles in the recent past contributed to falling attendance and income. He said the team makes less than the NBA average because it's in a smaller TV market.
                          "Ultimately, we own the building," Early said, "so we'll have to deal with those expenses." While the Pacers pay $15 million a year to play at Conseco, the city agreed to bear game-day expenses for the Colts in exchange for a lease that would keep the team in town for at least 30 years.
                          Rick Fuson, chief operating officer of Pacers Sports & Entertainment, said in a statement that he was pleased that the CIB is already looking at the problem.
                          CIB President Bob Grand said the board will need to work with the teams, the city and financial experts to get out of its trouble.
                          He said he was not ready to ask the Colts to renegotiate a deal that many have criticized as too generous. But he said the board will review CIB grants for the arts and other groups and try to find a way to manage its facilities better.
                          Grand had asked Lathrop to study the costs of the new stadium once a full season was complete. Lucas Oil Stadium, at 1.8 million square feet, is nearly double the size of the recently imploded RCA Dome, so its higher operating costs aren't surprising. Its water and electricity costs are higher, too.
                          With the higher costs, the CIB operating fund balance will dwindle to $5.6 million this year from tens of millions in past years.
                          The problem can be traced to the plans developed to finance the stadium.
                          City officials had anticipated covering increased costs with taxes from a proposed Downtown casino. But when the state wrested control of the building project in 2005, the new plan included no casino or other way to cover the increased operating expenses.
                          State officials say they never agreed to pay those costs. Under the terms of the state's financing, excess revenue from higher taxes on food and beverage sales, hotel bookings and car rentals will be used to pay off construction bond debt early rather than to cover operating costs.
                          Officials think an expanded convention center Ð expected by late 2010 Ð and the new business it attracts eventually will help cover the CIB's operating costs. But the board's problems are more immediate.
                          Grand said he did not expect the board's financial problems to affect the city's hosting of the 2012 Super Bowl. (Indianapolis Star)
                          now can we focus on what is really going on instead of saying Pacers run a bad business model ? they pay off CFH and ran it, now they're tired of bearing all cost, rightly so.
                          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                            Just a couple of things here -

                            "Except to keep their business here and grow it into the largest of its kind in the country."

                            Yes, they have done very, very well, and congrats to them on that.

                            "Except to personally employ thousands of Hoosiers and serve as the economic engine that has put countless others to work."

                            Well, sorta. I would have to say, past the construction phase, it is the tenants of the commercial ventures the Simons own who are the employers of a greater number of people.

                            "Except to erase the blight by filling in those holes in the heart of downtown with that little thing called Circle Centre mall."

                            Unless I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time) that $1 a year 99 year lease takes a lot of risk out of that venture. Not to mention the tax incentives that came with it.

                            "Except to donate millions upon millions of dollars to local charities, hospitals, not for-profits … you name it."

                            Once again, good for them, and congrats on doing that. I'm sure there have been some tax benefits along the way, but good has been done.

                            "Except to rescue the Indiana Pacers from out-of-state ownership"

                            At the time, maybe, but the last I knew the Simons are actually residents of California, not Indiana. Heck, I think Irsay was an Illinois resident when he brought the Colts to Indy, then moved here. The Simons have done the reverse. Not all out of state owners are bad just because of where they live.

                            One last thing. I keep seeing people mention the brawl. Just remember the years and years of supposedly losing money goes back a LONG time before the brawl. The Detroit situation was not the be-all, cause-all of the problem.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Article in Defense of the Simons

                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                              The real problem here is the NBA business model and some bad team decisions. Not the deal for Conseco Fieldhouse. So why is that the focus? They should be putting their energy into fixing the real problem, JMO.
                              The Simons can't change the NBA business model. That's not a job that's in their power. So why would you expect them to focus energy on something they can't change?

                              I'm sure they're doing what they can to change it, but that isn't much when it's not your decision.

                              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                              One last thing. I keep seeing people mention the brawl. Just remember the years and years of supposedly losing money goes back a LONG time before the brawl. The Detroit situation was not the be-all, cause-all of the problem.
                              I've read a couple things, and believe that until the brawl the losses were much more bearable than they are now. I would venture to guess ... just a guess mind you .... that the losses incurred since the brawl would come close to rivaling the losses of all other years before that. I have no facts, but just call it a hunch.

                              -- Steve --
                              Last edited by Pacersfan46; 03-14-2009, 02:15 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Indiana Pacers future in jeopardy from financial losses [ESPN]

                                Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                                Eh.......I really don't see what you are seeing there at all.

                                "I have no thought of leaving Indiana."

                                "Only a thought of preserving the Pacers and keeping them in Indiana."

                                Those two sentences say the exact same thing.

                                Unless you are talking about moving them to a suburb like Carmel or something? Because let me tell you the 2nd biggest city in the state is Fort Wayne and there is no way in hell we can support a NBA team here. Not now........yeah we had the Pistons like 60 years ago or whatever it was....we are a minor league town now. And after Fort Wayne you aren't going to find any other cities in the state capable of supporting a NBA team.

                                Of course the Chicago Bears did threaten to move to Gary, Indiana at one time. LOL
                                Move them to Evansville when they build their 11,000 seat downtown arena. LMFAO. I remember when some senator wanted to move the Colts to Evansville, it was a joke. I'm an Evansville native but I'm not sure if they could realistically support a pro franchise, as much as I'd love to see it. A metro area of 300,000 could not support a franchise, or can it? Take Green Bay for example.

                                Here is a real option though. Build a stadium on the Indiana side of Louisville overlooking the skyline? Louisville wants a pro team. 2 birds one stone and Id still support them. If they leave Indiana or move to Gary then no.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X